Laserfiche WebLink
TO: <br />FROM: <br />RE: <br />Dane County Planning and Development Department <br />Room 116, City -County Building, Madison, Wisconsin 53703 <br />Fax (608) 267-1540 <br />Community Development <br />(608)261-9781, Rm. 421 <br />May 8, 2008 Planning <br />(608)266-4251, Rm. 116 <br />ZLR Committee <br />Majid Allan, Senior Planner <br />Revised density study for petition 9243 (Eberle, Town of Dane) <br />CC: Richard Eberle, Petitioner <br />Roger Lane, Zoning Administrator <br />Records & Support <br />(608)266-4251, Rm. 116 <br />Zoning <br />(608)266-4266, Rm. 116 <br />Attached is a revised density study for petition 9243 by Richard Eberle, in section 12 of the Town of <br />Dane. Also attached are the relevant policies from the town/county plan. <br />The original density study documented two (2) available splits to the Eberle property. However, that <br />analysis failed to take into account another critical policy in the town/county plan. In situations where <br />portions of the original farm have been separated and rezoned, the plan requires that density be based on <br />current acreage owned, rather than original farm acreage. It further states that, "...the Town will not <br />exceed the maximum number of available `splits' permitted on the entire June 28, 1979 land holding." <br />While the initial density study was based on current acreage owned, the portion of the original farm that <br />was previously separated and rezoned actually represents two (2) splits (the entire 6/28/79 land holding <br />would've been eligible for a total of no more than 4 splits). CSM #10284, attached, created a 35 acre A- <br />2 zoned parcel with no deed restriction preventing further division or development. The minimum <br />parcel size in the A-2 zoning district is 16 acres. As such, parcel #0908-124-8002 could be re -divided to <br />create an additional building site without further zoning approvals by the town and county. The <br />Planning Division has consistently interpreted such situations as counting as an additional split against <br />the density limitation. <br />The revised study, therefore, documents one (1) possible split remaining to the Eberle property. <br />