DCPCUP-2017-02405 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Untie County Zoning k Land Rcgulatiun Cgmmimx+ January 19; 2018 Page 3 Pines Bach LLP Ilia existing operation has had a tangible e9'ect on property value. 'These effects arc explained in the attached request to revoke CUP 92175, which the Taide ari were recently forced to file to address liar of property value fi an the concrete plant and associated artier site. (See Attachment 1.) As the request explains, flat Tukiendorfs purchased their home for %255,300 in 2005. They had no problem with the mine operationallhallinre, which was then owned by Cauell's pmdecessor. Recent assessments conducted since the CUP was approved in 2011 have valued the 'rtikiendorfs' pmpeny at $177,900 (Town assessor) and 5121,320 (private assessor). The private assessor noted the Cavell operation and opined that the Tukiendorh' property was "so impacted by the adjacent uses that any practical use ... as residential is implausible." (Artxchmentl,NxhibitCat24.) He determined the propertywould now be Issuer used for industrial purposes. The Takieudorfs' neighbors to [heir immediate east have also experienced significantpropetty value dec lines. (Attachment I, Ex. E.) Expanding life mining operation with a new CUP will extend the the of the concs'etc batch plant, whirl!, along with operations at the mine site Itself and snpporti fig roads, will further impact the property values of neighbor.; like the Tuic ndrah. The application thus Poils to meet if 10, 255(2)(h)(1) and (2). Indeed, the Town of Cottage Grove rejected a prior version of this ,nine expansion for this very reason in 2016, (Attachment 2 at 1-2,4,5.) Despite this history, Mc Cattell's application provides only self-serving, concluseny statements that he will satisfy the County's standards, which are not suRciant to meet his burden. The CUP should be denied. B. arneCounty Oidinana §!0121(5) The CUP would turn a current A -1 Ex (exclusive agriculture) 35-zem site into an industrial site, significantly expanding the cxisfing, 52acm mine. Mr. Cluell cannot meet the five additional conditions that apply in conditional uses in this zone, and in fad, his application dacs not even mention these conditions. He has not met his burden to show the County's conditions am rod, Wis. StsL § 59.69(5cXb)2., and the application should be denied far this reason alone. Further, the available evidence shows the applicants could not show the additional conditions firr an A -1 P.x Dish ict arc satisfied. 'These conditions require: (a) The use and its location in the A -t Uxdusive Agriculture zowng district air of the district