Home : Plan Commission > Plan Commission Minutes

Selected Plan Commission Minutes
Plan Commission Minutes
Mar 20, 2018
PDF Version: 55281_2018-Mar-20_Plan Commission Minutes.pdf

 Town of Oregon  

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes  
Tuesday, March 20, 2018
1. Call to Order.
Plan Commission Chairman Brian Duffin called the March 20, 2018 Plan Commission meeting to order at 6:40 p.m.  
2. Roll Call.
Roll call was not taken, but the following Plan Commission members were present A. Christensen, S. Christensen, Duffin, Hagemann, Kay and Yanacheck.  Absent was Blomstrom.  Town Board Chairman Wayne Ace was present.
3. Approval of minutes.
Motion made by A. Christensen and seconded by T. Yanacheck to approve the February 27, 2018 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes.  Motion carried 6-0.
4. Public Comments.
Arlen Christensen meet with William Cummings, 6060 Sun Valley Pkwy, to discuss the location of a new driveway for a potential land division.  It was recommended that the land owner make contact with Dane County due to water located near the potential driveway.      
5. Discussion and possible Action r re: Review of Dane County Draft Zoning Map from Comprehensive Revision.
The answers to the list of questions from last month were answered by Brian Standing from Dane County. 
1. Agriculture entertainment is a permitted use in FP-35 under 10 days per calendar year.  Beyond 10 days a CUP is required.  Examples of Agricultura entertainment are listed on page 29 (October 5, 2017).  However, on page 117 some of these same activities are listed as farm related exhibitions with a restriction of 5 days of use in a calendar year.  Please explain.  
Brian recognized the discrepancy and will bring it up at the next ZLR Comprehensive Revision of Chapter 10 Subcommittee meeting on March 12, 2018. 
2. The Town of Oregon has some “pick-your-own” operations.  These operations are listed as an activity within agricultural entertainment on page 29 and thus limited to less than 10 days per calendar year of use without a CUP.  Our “pick-your-own” operations have never needed a CUP in the past.  Please explain.
The reason was to have some control if there are large groups of people and concern with traffic.  There was a question over How many people are there at one time?  The roadside stands are an allowable use.  Current operations would be allowed to continue as a legally nonconforming use.  
3. Explain the difference between 1 animal unit per acre (required in RR-M) and ATCP 50 (required in RM-8).  
1 animal unit (see definition here) per acre would apply to properties in the RR districts.  ATCP-50 is the state administrative code that governs soil and water conservation plans.  So, in the RR districts, there is a hard limit on the number of animals a landowner can have, based on the size of the parcel.  In the RM districts, there would be no numerical limit on the number of animals, as long they maintained a farm conservation plan approved for their property by the County Land Conservation Division.
4. Can a township use only RM zoning instead of RR zoning or vice versa instead of a combination of these zoning districts?
For parcels that are between 8 acres and 16 acres in size, yes.  For parcels between these sizes, the difference between RR-8 and RM-8 is entirely up to town preference.  
5. The Town of Oregon has some rural properties zoned commercial which may no longer be used for commercial use.  Should these property owners be contacted to see if they still want to be zoned commercial and offer to have them rezoned to an appropriate zoning district free of charge (similar like a blanket rezone) if they no longer need the commercial zoning?  
Yes, that’s a good idea.  If you can identify for us the properties you think might no longer have or need commercial zoning, we can send them a postcard tailored to their situation.  If the town wants to do some additional outreach to those landowners, that’s fine, too.  We’ll honor whatever recommendation the town makes for those parcels in the final zoning map the town adopts.
Duffin will create a list of concerns to present to the Town Board.  There was lengthy discussion.  The first concern is offering properties with commercial zoning the opportunity to rezone to a more appropriate zoning category for free.  There was discussion about properties that are not zoned commercial, but operate commercial businesses.  The second concern is the RM-8 and RM-16 zoning categories allowing unlimiting animals.  Currently RH-4 has a limit of one animal unit per acre, but will become RM-16 and allow unlimited animals.  There was a discussion about the conditional uses allowed under the various zoning categories including storage of vehicles.    
Motion made by Kay and seconded by T. Yanacheck to recommend to the town board that all RM-8 be taken off the map and replaced with RR-8.  There was further discussion.  Motion carried 6-0.
There was discussion about the three options that the town can notify town residents of the zoning changes.  
1. Notify every resident with a postcard and include the meeting date at the town hall.    
2. Notify just the landowners that might be affected by a more restrictive zoning, such as; commercial or “pick-your-own.”  * Suggested by the county to be used in the Town of Oregon.
3. Rely on the public notices to notify residents of the meetings.
Motion made by A. Christensen and seconded by Hagemann to recommend to the town board that notification to the residents will occur by 2 and 3.  Motion carried 5-0. S. Christensen opposed.  S. Christensen is concerned about residents that are operating out of zoning compliance.  There was additional discussion about identifying the properties, writing the letter and postage.  
Motion made by Kay to recommend 1 to notify all resident by postcard, but motion failed due to not being seconded.  Duffin said there will be additional discussions in the future on notifications.     
6. Discussion and Possible Recommendation to the Town Board re: Conservation Subdivision Ordinance, Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) and RH Policy 1f.
No further information presented.
7. Discussion and Possible Recommendation to the Town Board re: Updates to the Town Comprehensive Plan.
No further information presented.
8. Communications
No communications.
9. Adjournment.
Motion made by S. Christensen and seconded by Kay to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m.  Motion carried 6-0.
Respectfully submitted,  
Jennifer Hanson  

Archive View all from: 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005