DCPREZ-0000-07486 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

April 13, 1999 Dane County Planning&Development Zoning Division Room 116 City-County Building Madison, WI 53709 Helen Johnson, Chairperson: This is to argue against the rezoning petition for parcel 7486 of Section 10 in the town of Roxbury. It is my contention that Roxbury has circumvented its Land Use Plan and conducted their zoning deliberations in bad faith. I am asking that the Dane County Zoning&Natural Resources Committee exercise their oversight powers to recommend rejection of the request to rezone parcel 7486 from Exclusive Agricultural to Residential. The Roxbury Land Use Plan was prepared by the Town Planning Committee with staff assistance from the DaAe County Regional Planning Commission. The plan sets out a number of plan districts to define the nature, location and uses to be permitted throughout the town. Parcel 7486, according to the Land Use Plan map (attachment A)is covered under"Agricultural District Policies" (attachment B). The Agricultural District Policies were drafted to as to discourage development in agricultural areas and further, to allow for no subdivisions in agricultural preservation areas. Allowances for residential zoning in agricultural areas were generally provided for: • Residences of those who earn a substantial part of their livelihood from farm operations; • Additional residences for parents or children of the farm operator; • Replacement of the existing farm residences; • Separation of existing dwellings; and • Retention of a residential lot for the farm owner when the whole farm is sold. This rezoning request is for a residence for the grandson of the farm owner. Neither the owner nor the grandson operate the farm(four contiguous parcels totaling in excess of 100 acres). Ervin Breunig, the Roxbury town council chairperson, advises that the farm land is leased to another operator. The grandson, as far as can be determined, will not"earn a substantial part of(his) livelihood from farm operations" and his house would not qualify as a"farm residence". This rezoning request should be denied on this basis alone. The fact that this request leaves an easement back to the farm was explained by Chairman Breunig as being in anticipation of the farm being sold. If the current request is granted, it is tantamount to granting permission for yet another split when the farm is ultimately sold. That easement will become someone's driveway in spite of the fact that the land use plan expressly forbids such thoroughfares to cross agricultural land to reach proposed non-farm development (page 4 lines 12-13). This request should also be denied based upon this issue alone.