SU0013155 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Item No. 2 PC: 7-16-92 VR-92-6 Page 2 STAFF ANALYSIS PROPERTY HISTORY: The existing 70-acre parcel was created with a lot line adjustment by the Planning Division's approval on December 14, 1977, of Parcel Map Application No. PM-78-98. That application merged two existing parcels of 30 acres and 40 acres. Subsequently, Parcel Map Application No. PM-79-31 was approved by the Planning Division on September 6, 1978. That application adjusted lot lines and resulted in the merger of a 35-acre parcel (to the west) to the subject parcel,thereby creating a parcel of approximately 105 acres. The westerly 35 acres were later separated from the 70 acres by the Planning Division's approval of Deviation Application No. D-85-1 and Minor Subdivision Application No. MS-85-24 on January 14, 1985. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: The General Plan designation for the subject parcel is Agriculture, and it is zoned AG-40 (Genral Agriculture; 40-acre minimum parcel size). Approval of the Variance application would result inIG- 40 he creation of a parcel (of 30 acres)that would not conform to the minimum acreage requirements of the zone. Prior to approving a Variance application, three required Findings must be made by the County. 1,As detailed in the 'Findings' section of the staff report, none of the three Findings can be made in he affirmative. To make Finding No. 1, there must be circumstances surrounding the applicant's situation, limited to the physical characteristics of the property,which are unique in that other properties in the area do not1 ave the same conditions. The unique circumstance must deprive the property owner of privileges enjed by other properties in the area with the same zoning in order to justify the authorization of a Varia'ce. CIV In the case of the subject parcel, there are no physical or geographical circumstances that are un ue to the subject parcel. To make Finding No. 2, it must be shown that granting the Variance will not constitute a granting of special privileges to the property owner that are inconsistent with the limitations placed upon lame her properties in the vicinity with the same zoning as the subject parcel. In this case, the granting the Variance would allow the property owner to subdivide the property, resulting in a nonconforming pcel, and construct a second residence on the 70-acre site. Surrounding property owners with the zoning are not able to subdivide to create parcels containing less acreage that the zone minimum or to place more than one single-family residence on an individual parcel. To make Finding No. 3, it must be shown that granting the Variance would not authorize a use ora ivity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone governing the parcel of property. In the case of the subject parcel, granting the Variance would allow the construction of a second single-f mily residence, which would exceed the AG-40 zone's limit of one such use per 40-acre parcel. As part of the application, property owners seeking approval of a Variance are asked to submit facts that would support the making of the required Findings. The applicants' Findings are included in the staff