SU0005634 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RESPONSE In order to approve this Variance,three findings concerning special circumstances, special privileges, and land use must be made. The Planning Commission denied the Variance because of their inability to make Findings 1 and 2. Finding 1 requires that because of the special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surrounding,the strict application of the regulation deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. During the Commissioners' deliberation,they determined that there were no special circumstances applicable to Mr. Brown's property, based on a strict appiicaiion of the regulaui,n,that daprivas his property of pn✓ ileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. Finding 2 requires that the granting of the Variance will not grant a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the AG-40 zone and other properties in the vicinity, in which the property is situated. During the Commissioners' deliberation,the Commissioners concluded that granting the Variance would grant Mr. Brown special privileges inconsistent with other properties in the AG-40 zones and properties in the vicinity and therefore,they could not support the Variance request. The following information is in response to the additional items included in the above applicant's appeai statement: • The 1.8 acres parcel does not meet Development Title Section 9-610.3(a) requirements for a "Homesite Parcel." • The Cedergren Ranch house does not now meet the Development Title Section 9-1053.6 requirements for"Creation for Parcel for Historical Resources." • The smaller parcels, mentioned by the applicant, viera created pursuant to past regulations, which are not relevant to current regulations or required findings. • Granting of the Variance would have an impact on current agricultural uses and farm practices as is noted in the San Joaquin Farm Bureau Federation's letter of opposition. • The applicant states that"Approval of this Variance will not change the use of the land,the number of homes on the land, nor the number of individuals residing on the land." The statement is incorrect, approval of the Variance (1)would permit creation of a salable non- farm homesite, (2)would allow the possibility of two more dwellings to be built under the Development Title provision for Second Unit Dwellings, and (3)would possibly increase land use conflicts between new non-farm dwellings and the existing agricultural community. A legal ad for the public hearing was published in the Stockton Record on November 3,2000, and 23 public hearing notices were mailed on November 1,2000. —2—