DCPCUP-0000-00364 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Dane County Agriculture Page Three February 28 , 1984 to purchase acreage which connects with County Trunk CV in order to create two accesses to this property; one off of Acker Road and one off of County Trunk CV. As such, potential customers can approach from Acker Road, from either direction off of CV and from either direction off of U .S. Highway 51 . We submit that this kind of ingress and egress will substantially minimize any potential for increased traffic as the result of the operation of this particular business. We also submit that the primary use of U.S. Highway 51 by this establishment will come at times when that highway is otherwise receiving light use. Even if that were not the case, the increase in traffic caused by this business location would amount to less than 11% based on the 1981 figure quoted by Mr. Callaway. I cannot conclude that the establishment and operation of this proposed business would in any way be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare or that the establishment of the conditional use would impede the normal and orderly development and improvement or use, value or enjoyment of surrounding property. The committee need only view that surrounding property to see that it is principally commercial and that these businesses operate principally from 9 : 00 a.m. to 5 : 00 p.m. The principal business expected by Mr. Skalitaky at this location would occur between the hours of 8 : 00 p.m. and 1 : 00 a.m. The property will be substantially improved at great expense and the result of that should be substantially to upgrade the nature of this property and have a positive affect on property values for the adjoining properties. It is true that the planning commission for the Town of Burke voted on January 17 , 1984 to deny the issuance of a beer license. This denial came after a public hearing which was not attended by a full board and at which time Mr. Skalitzky was not represented by counsel. At the public hearing held before the Town Board on January 31, 1984 , Mr. Skalitzky was represented by counsel. At that time a full and complete explanation of Mr. Skalitzky' s plans were submitted to the board along with petitions from a significant number of near by business owners voicing approval of the issuance of the beer license. Based upon that information the board voted in favor of issuance of the beer licnese and of the required conditional use permit. As you are aware that vote did not constitute an over-ride of the recommendations of the planning commission but, rather, was the opinion of the elected representatives of the citizens of the Town of Burke. Finally, It is beyond this writer as to how Mr. Callaway can make any comparisons between the business which my client proposes and one which was operated by entirely different people years ago at an entirely different location in the Town of Burke.