SU0013441 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Response to Appeal Statement ' Finding No. 1 states: Because of the special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings,the strict application of the regulation deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. The circumstances listed by the applicant do not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity. This site and the surrounding properties are zoned AG-40 and are predominantly large agricultural lots of 20 to 60 acres each. The agricultural uses enjoyed by surrounding properties are available to this site. Appeal Statement No. 2 In his appeal, the applicant states: 'Creation of these two parcels will not stick out as a'Special privilege,' given the area's numerous similar parcels.' 'Second, the Staff and Commission statement that 'other properties in the vicinity cannot create parcels that exceed General Plan densities' is not pertinent to this situation. This subdivision will not in any way change the current densities or uses which already exist.' Response to Appeal Statement No. 2 The underlying subdivision will create a 2-acre lot with a residence and leave a 24.97 acre remainder that may be developed with a residence. Therefore, the underlying project will exceed the maximum density of one dwelling per 20-acres permitted in the A/G designation. Appeal Statement No. 3 In his appeal, the applicant states: 'Finally, the Commission previously granted a very similar application, under similar circumstanc- es, indicating that both Findings can be made in this situation, as well. Please see Resolution R- 92-466.' Response to Appeal Statement No. 3 The applicant refers to Variance Application No. VR-92-2 of Thomas and Irene Shephard. That request was to vary the minimum 40-acre parcel size to permit the subdivision of a 1.64-acre parcel into a 0.95 acre parcel and a 0.69-acre parcel. The Planning Commission denied VR-92-2 due to the inability to make the Findings as stated in the Staff Report. On appeal, the Board of Supervisors made the r-quired findings and approved the variance. The Shephard's asserted that the parcels were small and not suitable for agricultural activities, and that the property had unusual shape and topography. BCS L_F7ER PAGE 2