primrose web-inter2

Comprehensive Plan

Documents | Reports and Meeting Minutes | Written Comments

Email comment - 9/21/09 —Download

Email comment - 9/13/09

Dedicated open spaces, View Scrapes, open space corridors, etc., as proposed in the Dane County Comp Plan will give the county almost total control of all development in Primrose. It will also give the County the ability to add grass prairies, oak Savannahs, in to our Comp Plan to further limit development. It essentially takes Local Control and gives it to the county.

In 1981 Primrose went from one house per acre owned to one house per 35 acres owned. If Primrose lowers their acres from 4 acres to 2 acres, it has and will continue to ensure every 33 of 35 acres wall be held in perpetuity as wetlands, dedicated open spaces, view scapes , open space corridors, environmental and wild life corridors, oak Savannahs, etc. This Comp Plan as proposed by Dane County takes away local township control and puts into county control. If Primrose excepts this plan as written by Dane County It will reduce the value of all or ,most of the densities by a substantial amount. TDR or PDR's will be of little value if the development has been taken away with these other proposals. Primrose, and the rest of Dane County who wish to continue Farmland preservation need to help to get the Farmers PDR's or TDR's or let the owner developed his densities. Even the Federal Government says that you cannot have Farmland Preservation with out the farmers.. I think PDRs are one way to help farmers to Farm in Primrose, and help to ensure farming in Primrose.The only alternative, in my opinion. is to change the title of our plan from Farmland Preservation to Parks and Open spaces.

And remember, You cant have Farmland Preservation with out the farmers!

William Haack
PLannng Commissions Chair for
The Town of Primrose

Email comment - 9/3/09

RE: Dedicated open space
I would like to see Primrose stay rural and agricultural, but we need to all get involved in the new Land Use and Comprehensive Plan decisions. Every Property Owner in the township of Primrose needs to look at this closely. On the surface, the plan looks reasonable, but once you take a closer look, you will understand how this will encroach on your Constitutional Rights as a land owner.

If you own property that could be used for, or fits in the following categories you will be affected by the new Comprehensive plan. Government entities want control of all of these areas. They include but are not limited to the following:

Travel Corridors, Environmental Corridors, Open-Space Corridors, Recreational Areas both in and out of the Open Space or any of the other items listed, View Sheds, View Scapes, Wooded Property, Grasslands, Land on Slopes, Wildlife Corridors. Property that has Scenic Qualities, Scenic Driving Corridors, Historical Sites, Wet Lands, Hydraulic Soils, Hydraulic Plants, Recreational Trails, Bike Trails, Hiking Trails, Park Trail s and Possible Park Trails. Any property that will link DNR land to Parkland and/or all Trails together, also property that has a Conservancy use. All Watershed areas, Expanded Floodplains, Public Right of Ways, Public Easement, Wildlife Habitat, Erodible Soil, Savannas and Property with Mineral Rights. Any property having Natural Resources, or Property that is used for Ground Water Recharging, Flood Control, Ecosystems, and all Adjacent Landscapes. All Streams, lake beds, Ponds, Open Water Bodies, any Property that will Protect all Landscapes, Prairies, Natural Areas, Trails for Canoes, Kayaks, Watercraft and Property that can be used to Access Waterways. It also includes any Property that is Adjacent to a State, County, or Local Park. Archaeological sites, Wildlife or Conservation Area, and Open-Space Networks. All Property That can be used for Natural Resource Protection or Conservation Utility Corridors, Stream Corridors, Shoreland and Stream Banks. Any Property that has Natural Scenic Beauty, Urban Lakes, or stream Bank buffers. Included is Property that can be used to Manage Storm water Run-off and All Property used for Natural Infiltration and Headwater Areas, Vegetative Buffers, Slope Protection and Conservancy Overlay Districts. Any Property that will Protect Wellheads, Ag land, Property with Good Soils, Urban Service Areas, Environmentally Sensitive Land, Large Tracts of Ag Land, Property with Poor Soil, and Property with Other Resource Features, Sledge Meadows, Wet Meadows, Inland Fresh Meadows, Deep and Shallow Marshes, Swamps, . This will a lso affect anyone who has Riparian Water Rights. (The previous items are direct quotes from governmental documents and Maps issued by Dane County Planning and Zoning.) (Click to read more)

Email comment via Brian Standing - 8/28/09

To Whom It May Concern:

We moved to Primrose Township several years ago. In building our home and driveway, we followed all of the rules and regulations of the Primrose Town Landuse Plan. This came at extensive expense and at times, disappointment, to us. However, we respect the plan's overall purpose to protect the country living offered in the township. Therefore, we DO NOT want to change the current plan.

Since we have lived here, we notice those who want changes to the landuse plan also want to exploit it. Those who want to make extraordinary amounts of money or leave the community while selling the land to developers who will exploit it. Therefore, we remain 100% against any changes because if we give in a little, we believe the profiteers will take advantage of this opportunity.

If change is inevitable, we support consideration of small, reasonable and practical shifts. For example, it doesn't make sense to tear down a beautiful woods to build a house when a house could be built right at the edge of the woods and conserve most of the farmland. It would be nice to see value in natural beauty and rare ecosystems in addition to farmland. If we must change, do as York Township does and have the minimum lot size 80 acres. In addition to this, a conservation easement added to the deed to prevent development in the future. (click to read more from Cindy Haack)

Email question via Winnie to Brian Standing - 7/20/09

Hi Brian - Lots of questions, comments, etc. on the proposed land use portion of the comp plan such as:

1. When was a public hearing held to discuss all of this? Thought the public was to be involved.

2. Apparently many densities will be lost if you have land in a floodplain and in addition if it has prime soil (I or II) Is this fair? Never used soils before when they should have so now that a way is found to eliminate some densities, we use soils. Who made this decision

3. You state 27 houses prior to 1981 - can you give us a list of names?

...and this is only the beginning of the questions.

Winnie

Hi, Winnie

1. This is a proposed, working draft to the Steering Committee, and is certainly not intended to be a final document. I outlined the basic recommendations at the last public input meeting, and have incorporated many of the public comments into this draft. I would expect the Steering Committee will want to discuss all of these issues in some depth -- at a public meeting, of course -- and may also want to hold additional public input sessions on the details of this proposal. I also want to emphasize that no one instructed me to include any of these recommendations in the proposal; I drafted this recommendation on my own initiative, as I have for previous drafts of other chapters. The Steering Committee should feel completely free to accept, modify or reject completely any or all of the recommendations in this proposal. This is a starting point for discussion, nothing more.

2. As I explained at the last public information meeting, and in my e-mail, adopting the Environmental and Resource Protection District as shown in the proposal I sent out last week WILL NOT preclude any landowner from using their splits under the town density policy, NOR will it cut such properties off from road access. This would include wetlands, floodplains, hydric soils, slopes greater than 25% and Group I and II farm soils. In some cases, properties already have a stream or wetland crossing that provides sufficient access. In other cases, some properties are ALREADY landlocked due to surrounding landholdings, NOT because of environmental corridors. It is only if you ADD additional categories, such as Group III soils, slopes greater than 12%, or woodlands that you raise the potential of limiting potential splits under the 1:35 policy.

Page 2, Policy 3 of the 1981 plan reads "To limit non-farm development to soils not classified as agricultural land." This proposal -- and it is just a proposal -- would simply put some specificity on the soils in question by tying them to the Dane County Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) system. As it turns out, in Primrose, the Group I and Group II LESA soils coincide almost exactly with the hydric soils.

3. I can get you a list -- hopefully by the end of the week.

I hope this helps. Let me know if there are... and I'm sure there will be.. further questions.

Brian Standing
Senior Planner
Dane County Planning & Development

Notes from Public Comment portion of Town of Primrose Comprehensive Plan Steering committee meeting September 22, 2008.
Notetaker: Marla Handy

!) Comments on summary of notes taken at previous meeting:

Clarification that Question #6 on Demographic Portion of Planning Survey needs to include option for households having no children.
Survey content was not considered to be comprehensive
Want to know when answers will be provided for the questions asked
What is Marla’s role and how was it decided?
Will each component of the survey (general and demographic information) be mailed separately? How many mailings will the Town do?
Can some of the administrative tasks associated with survey compilation be done by the town in order to save money?
The return-to address (county or town) may influence the response rate of surveys.
Planning process updates should be made available on the Town website as quickly as possible.
Will there be some form of public notification when email communication occurs among steering committee members?

2) Questions/Comments about the planning process and public participation options presented during this meeting:

Need further definition on House Meetings. How will they be organized? Do they need to be posted?
Will current Steering Committee materials be passed out and available to all at the meetings? (Concern that Committee members are referring to current/recent materials not available to others.)
When will responses be made to public participation comments? Will it be soon enough to be effective?
Desire to feel that public participation is sincerely welcomed.
How to access the web to get progress on planning?
What is the role of the notetaker for public participation?
Should there be a notetaker for the public participation portion of meetings?
Openness and consistency in planning language is desired.

Please send your comments and feed back to Primrose Web Site Administrator