SU0003906 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Jennifer Jolly July 14, 2003 Page 2 3. 1 have been asked by the County for numerous time extensions for processing this application. I was of the understanding that the wording of the Joint Management Agreement was the issue and not whether or not the project would go forward. 4. Based on our telephone conversation today, I understand the project cannot approved as submitted. The property could be divided, but building permits could not be issued. I reviewed the opinion offered by Mike McGrew, County Counsel, regarding the Project. Mr. McGrew is correct in his statement that the "purpose of the Williamson Act is to preserve Agricultural Land." As you know, this property, it is current configuration, is entitled to two homesites. One is a primary residence and the other is a Second Unit Dwelling with no size restriction. Ironically, by allowing the Project, my client, is willing to concede to only one homesite until the property is out of the Williamson Act. In other words, he is preserving farm land and reducing the number of homesites. I have reviewed Government Code, Section 51230.1 regarding this project. The Code refers to many restrictions of development based on transfer of title. I do not know if the County is aware, but there is no transfer of title planned with this project. Since it has been stated that the project could be allowed, but no building permits issued, it would appear the property division, in concept is a valid and proper use of the land. The question I ask is if my client builds a house on the property and then applies for a Minor Subdivision, would it be allowed. Farm land would not be taken out of production since a home would already be in existence. The spirit of the Williamson Act would be upheld. This same logic has just be implemented on another Williamson Act project in this County (see PA-02-657). Also, does the fact that no title transfer will occur have any bearing on the County Counsel's opinion.