My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SU0012991
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
D
>
DAVIS
>
11733
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
VR-99-06
>
SU0012991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2020 1:29:40 PM
Creation date
9/4/2019 5:18:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
RECORD_ID
SU0012991
PE
2663
FACILITY_NAME
VR-99-06
STREET_NUMBER
11733
Direction
N
STREET_NAME
DAVIS
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
LODI
Zip
95240-
APN
05522023
ENTERED_DATE
1/28/2020 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
11733 N DAVIS RD
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
004
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\sballwahn
Supplemental fields
FilePath
\MIGRATIONS\D\DAVIS\11733\VR-99-06\EH PERM.PDF
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Analysis <br /> Background <br /> ound <br /> The subject parcel was created in 1973 as part of Division of Land Application No. DL-73-237, which <br /> subdivided a parcel into the subject 10-acre parcel and three 5-acre parcels. The zoning at the time of <br /> division was GA-5, which permitted the creation of 5-acre parcels. In 1980, as part of Zone <br /> Reclassification No Z-80-40, the property was rezoned AG-40, which requires a 40-acre minimum parcel <br /> size. The McAtees obtained the parcel in 1974. <br /> Reasons for Variance <br /> With the application, the applicant submitted a letter explaining the reasons for the Variance application. <br /> The applicant maintains that because the property owner, her father, purchased the property when the <br /> zoning was AG-5, he believed the rezoning to AG-40 did not pertain to his property, and it was always his <br /> intent to subdivide the property and give each of his daughters a 5-acre parcel. The applicant also states <br /> that her father is in poor health, and the subdivision would allow her to build a home and relocate to an <br /> adjacent property to care for him. <br /> The property was rezoned in 1980. As part of this Zone Reclassification, all affected parcel owners were <br /> notified. According to Community Development Department records, Mr. McAtee was notified of the <br /> pending Reclassification and that his parcel was part of said Reclassification. <br /> The Development Title permits a second unit dwelling to be constructed on such parcels as the subject <br /> parcel. The second unit provision is often used for the care of ailing parents. However, a second unit <br /> dwelling already exists and is occupied by the applicant's sister. <br /> Depth to Width Ratio <br /> Development Title Section 9-905.9(b) requires that parcels located in the AG zone have a depth to width <br /> ratio not to exceed 4:1. The depth to width ratio of Parcel 1 is 5:1. Parcel 2 also exceeds this ratio. <br /> Policy Considerations <br /> In order to approve a Variance, three Findings must be made. In the Variance application, the applicant <br /> submitted explanations to support each Finding. <br /> • Finding 1 states, "Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, <br /> topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the regulation deprives the property of <br /> privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification." <br /> In support of this Finding, the applicant states that the subject property is deprived privileges enjoyed by <br /> others properties in the vicinity because sixteen of the nineteen parcels along Davis Road in the vicinity of <br /> the project.site are less than 5 acres in size. The applicant also maintains that an additional eleven <br /> parcels along Armstrong Road are under the zone minimum. <br /> Though there are actually more than thirty parcels along this portion of Davis Road, the Community <br /> Development Department agrees with the applicant that the majority of the parcels are under the required <br /> parcel size. However, this is not relevant to Finding 1 in that it does not constitute special circumstances. <br /> There is nothing exceptional about the size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings of the parcel <br /> that represent special circumstances as contained in Finding 1. The Community Development <br /> San Joaquin County . VR-99-61McAtee <br /> Community Development Page 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.