SU0003429 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

N_ SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Pi 1810 E.HAZELTON AVE.,STOCK-TON,CA 95205-6232 9C�FORd� PHONE:209/468-3121 FAX:209/468-3163 July 14, 2004 Board of Supervisors County Courthouse Stockton, CA 95202 Dear Board Members: PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE APPEAL BY ROBERT AND JUDY KENT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF VARIANCE APPLICATION NO. PA-0400192 (FOURTH SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT) IT IS RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Supervisors deny the appeal. BACKGROUND: The applicant submitted this Variance application to reduce the zone minimum parcel size in the AG-40 zone from forty acres to four acres. The underlying project is a Minor Subdivision application to create two parcels of four or more acres each. For a Variance application to be approved, all three Findings for a Variance must be made in the affirmative. Finding No. 1 states that 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. Finding No. 2 states that the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. Finding No. 3 states that the Variance will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulation governing the parcel of property. The Planning Commission heard this matter at the June 17, 2004 meeting. Robert Kent and Kent Wallace spoke in favor of the project. Rich Stevens and Dirk Filagard spoke in opposition. After considering all oral and written testimony, the Planning Commission moved and seconded a motion to approve the Variance application based on the fact that the topsoil has been removed, making the land not suitable for farming. This motion failed on a 2-3 vote, and the Variance was denied. The Commissioners that voted against the motion stated that they could not make Findings No. 1 and 2 in the affirmative, and, therefore, were unable to support the Variance request. On June 24, 2004, Robert Kent appealed the Planning Commission's action. Appeal Statement "A motion was made to pass the variance but failed to receive a majority vote (3-2). Findings 1 was not able to be made by two of the commissioners. We feel that dissenting commissioners did not take into consideration that stripping the topsoil from the subject property qualifies as a special circumstance for Finding 1 for the following reasons: