Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06091992 - H.4 PPI/ H.4 •-,�, Il C4,:itra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS -- _ = _ Costa FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON �; '_'''tl�"� El" County DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ',� ?' o DATE: April 17 , 1992 �oUN GA SUBJECT: Hearing for Minor Subdivision #8-91, a Proposal by Bellecci & Associates (Applicant) and Walter & Erma Bettencourt (Owners) to Divide 45 Acres of Prime Agricultural Land, Under an Agricultural Preserve Contract into Two Parcels. Subject Property is located at #660 Marsh Creek Road SPECIFIC REQUEST (S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Deny the applicant's request and reverse the East County Planning Commission's decision to approve this subdivision. BOARD OPTIONS Option A - Reverse the Planning Commission Decision: 1. Deny MS 8-91 making the finding that the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the General Plan because it would create a parcel, located in the Agricultural Core, under 40 acres in size. Option B - Sustain Planning Commission's Approval Decision: 1. Approve MS 8-91 with the attached conditions. (Not attached to order . Copies given to Board at hearing on file with Comm. Dev. ) 2 . Approve the findings contained in the resolution of the East County Regional Planning Commission as the basis for the Board actions. 3 . Accept the environmental documentation prepared for the project as being adequate. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE ' ��n < RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMIT EE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF ,BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER x See Addendum for Board action VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED June 9 , 1992 cc: Bellecci and Associates PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Walter & Erma Bettencourt THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS An COUN ADMINISTRATOR 0 BY P , DEPUTY v ,r 2 . BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The applicant is proposing to divide the subject parcel into one 40 acre parcel and one 5 acre parcel. The proposed 5 acre parcel is at variance to the 20 acre minimum parcel size for the A-4 district and does not meet the density requirements (1 unit per 40 acres) for the Agricultural Core Land Use District. Additionally, the subject parcel is under Agricultural Preserve Contract and has not been noticed for non-renewal. On September 9 , 1991 this application was presented to the Zoning Administrator, by staff, with a recommendation of denial. At that hearing, the Zoning Administrator expressed that this application should be denied because the 5 acre parcel being proposed is not consistent with the General Plan, which requires a minimum parcel size in the Agricultural Core of 40 acres. In response to the Zoning Administrator's statement, the applicant requested that the Zoning Administrator abstain from rendering a decision on this project and rather send this application to the East County Regional Planing Commission for a decision. The Zoning Administrator granted the applicant's request and the application was sent to the Commission without a formal recommendation by the Zoning Administrator. On October 14 , 1991 this application was heard and approved by the East County Regional Planning Commission. The resolution adopted by the Commission explains that the reasons for their recommendation are that they believe a hardship exists, that the variance is justified, and that the proposed division is consistent with Section 66474 . 4 (b) (2) of the Subdivision Map Act, governing subdivision of land which is under Agricultural Preserve Act Contract. This section allows parcels smaller than 10 acres in size to be created on prime agricultural land if: one of the parcel contains a residence and is subject to Section 428 of the Revenue and Taxation Code; the residence has existed on the property for at least five years; the landowner has owned the parcel for at least 10 years; and the remaining parcels shown on the map are at least 10 acres in size if the land is prime agricultural land. Based on a statement submitted by the applicant, it appears that this proposed subdivision is consistent with the Williamson Act. In conclusion, while staff believes this project meets the provisions of Section 66474 . 4 (b) (2) of the Subdivision Map Act, staff continues to recommend denial of this division because staff finds the proposed division is inconsistent with the General Plan because it would create a parcel smaller than 40 acres in the Agriculural Core. If, however, the Board of Supervisors finds that the project is consistent with the General Plan and chooses to approve the project, staff has provided Option B, above. This application is being heard by the Board of Supervisors because this project is under Williamson Act Contract. ADDENDUM TO ITEM HA JUNE 9, 1992 This is the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for hearing on the recommendation of the East County Regional Planning Commission on the request of Bellecci and Associates (applicant) and Walter and Erma Bettencourt (owners) for approval of a vesting tentative map to divide 45.2 acres into two lots (MS 8- 91) in the Brentwood area. Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented the staff report on the proposal describing the location and zoning and the property being subject to a Williamson Act Contract. Mr. Barry commented on the options before the Board for consideration today advising that the Conditions of Approval had not been included in the packet and that he was providing them to the Board now. The public hearing was opened and the following persons presented testimony: Frank P. Bellecci, 3390 Diamond Boulevard, Concord; H. Alan Huouinen, 675 Hartz Avenue, Danville. The public hearing was closed. The Board discussed the matter and on recommendation of Supervisor Torlakson, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that Option B is APPROVED.