SU0001013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PC: 42-92 VR-92-2 STAFF ANALYSIS HISTORY: The applicant's basis for the Variance application is that the surrounding parcels are small and not suitable for agricultural activities. The properties along Helen Lane are smaller than the 40-acre zone minimum as the result of Variance and Zone Reclassification applications. The subject site's zone designation was changed from EA-3 to GA-40 on January 19, 1980. Since that time, there have been three Variance applications In the surrounding area. These previous Variances requested that the minimum parcel size be varied anywhere from 0.82 acres to 4.49 acres. One application was withdrawn (V-82-81); one was denied by the Board of Zoning Adjustments (V-82-75);and one was denied by the Planning Commission but,upon appeal,was approved by the Board of Supervisors (V-83-52). The approved Variance application, which was for the parcel directly northeast of the subject site, was to vary the minimum parcel size to a 0.82-acre parcel and a 1.54-acre parcel. The parcel on the northeast comer of Helen Lane and Foppiano Lane was rezoned from GA-40 to GA-1 In April 1987; subsequently, two parcels were created. One parcel was 1.97 acres, and the other was 3.48 acres. This area was later rezoned to AL-5 (Ordinance 3447). POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: The General Plan designation for the project site is Agriculture, and the zone Is AG-40 (General Agriculture, 40-acre minimum parcel size). This zone permits one single-family residence and various agricultural uses on the property. Granting this Variance would allow the applicant to apply for the creation of two nonconforming parcels that do not meet the minimum acreage requirements of the AG-00 zone. Before a Variance can be granted, required findings of fact must be made by the County. As detailed In the 'Findings' section, Findings No. 1, 2, and 3 cannot be made. To make Finding No. 1, there must be circumstances surrounding the applicant's situation, limned to the physical characteristics of this property, which are unique In that other properties In the area do not have the same conditions. The unique circumstances must deprive the owner of privileges enjoyed by the other property owners In order to justify the authorization of a Variance. In this case, there are no physical or geographical circumstances that are unusual. To make Finding No. 2, it must be shown that permitting the Variance will not constitute a granting of special privileges Inconsistent with the limitations placed upon other properties In the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. This Finding cannot be made because granting the Variance would permit two parcels to be created, both of which would be significantly below the zone's minimum acreage. Also, the grarrting of this Variance would permit over six parcels to be served by a private road. Board of Supervisors Resolution 88-1200 states that if a new parcel is being created, a maximum of six lots may be served. -8-