Laserfiche WebLink
JUL-06-1993 16:27 FROM LAND CONSERUATION SAC TO 912094683163 P.05 <br /> Mr. William Sousa <br /> July 6, 1993 <br /> Page 5 <br /> OL sue "so s ( (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 1122) . The court noted <br /> that the Williamson Act was intended to protect farmland from <br /> conversion into "scattered, low density, single family <br /> subdivisions" (Id. , at 1139) . It determined that a low density <br /> subdivision in a rural area was "urban" for the purposes of the <br /> Williamson Act, and consequently must satisfy the contiguity <br /> requirement. The court therefore remanded the Board's decision <br /> and specifically required further analysis of the issue of <br /> contiguity. <br /> similarly, the Attorney General's Office has twice opined <br /> that subdividing contracted lands for the purpose of residential <br /> development is inconsistent with the Williamson Act ( (62 ops. <br /> Att'y Gen. 233 (1979) ; 54 Ops. Att'y Gen. 90 (1971) ) . In one <br /> case, the Attorney General concluded as follows. <br /> we conclude that the determination of the Board <br /> that the division of a 1,200 acre farm into 20 acre <br /> homesites will result in the loss of productive <br /> . agricultural land, is sufficient reason for the board <br /> to refuse to acquiesce in such division . . .What is <br /> proposed here does violence to the iatte andspirit of <br /> the Williamson Act (54 Ops. Att'y Gen. 9o, 92, (1971) <br /> (emphasis added) ) . <br /> In sum, the Williamson Act was intended to preclude <br /> residential development of agricultural lands. As held in the <br /> Bonen Spacings case, no attempt to categorize such development as <br /> "rural" may overcome the inherent inconsistency between <br /> residential conversion and the purpose of the Act. Since <br /> discontiguous patterns of urban development will result from <br /> cancellation of these parcels, we conclude that this subfinding <br /> cannot be -made. <br /> There is_no proximate. noncontracte able_ <br /> and <br /> gUitapIe for the use proposed for the contracted 1 n - or that <br /> t o dave1ppment, of co cted land would ro more contiguous <br /> RA- terns of urban development than developmer f prDXiMate <br /> contracted Ianc�._ <br /> Proponents claim that there is no parcel of land larger than <br /> 40 acres in size within at least a mile radius of the Buckeye <br /> Ranch property that is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. <br /> However, the supreme Court in S ' v. pointed out that <br /> for land to be "proximate" does not imply that there is a need <br /> for the land to be adjacent. In fact, the Court stated that <br /> courts have found locations up to seven and one-half miles apart <br /> "adjacent" for the purposes . of a particular statutory scheme, <br />