Laserfiche WebLink
-2 <br /> This ten-acre parcel, part of an original 36 acre parcel, was stripped of much of its topsoil in <br /> the past, which was placed on the adjoining property to the south to help level the soil for <br /> flood irrigation and to improve the soil depth in preparation for planting a walnut orchard. <br /> We feel this qualifies as a change in topography, yielding the property unproductive for <br /> commercial farming. This deprives the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other <br /> properties in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification. There have been two <br /> attempts at commercial farming on this property that we are aware of: <br /> One attempt with walnut trees failed due to the lack of sufficient topsoil. The original <br /> orchard extended into the southwest quarter of the subject property but never matured to <br /> the size present in the southern half of the two parcels south of us. Only two trees <br /> remain on our property with very few trees on the north end of the remaining orchard. <br /> Recently Oat hay was also attempted for several years by Mr. Connor, who farms the 40 <br /> acres just north of us. We entered into a share crop agreement with Mr. Connor, but he <br /> stopped planting after repeated poor yields. <br /> Two of the no votes came from commissioners who stated that they could not make <br /> finding number one because `anyone could just strip the topsoil and apply for a <br /> variance.' The process of stripping topsoil is now regulated. Furthermore, stripping of <br /> topsoil for the sole purpose of dividing land is not the situation with this piece of <br /> property, as it was actually stripped more than 30 years ago. We were unaware of this <br /> stripping when the property was purchased in 1988." <br /> Response to Appeal Statement <br /> Three members of the Planning Commission stated that they could not make Findings No. 1 and 2 for a <br /> Variance application to be approved. The Commission determined that the removal of topsoil from the <br /> property did not meet the requirement for special circumstances, and approving this Variance would <br /> create a bad precedent. <br /> A legal ad for the public hearing was published in the Stockton Record on July 16, 2004, and 23 public <br /> hearing notices were mailed on July 13, 2004. <br /> FISCAL IMPACT: <br /> None. <br /> ACTION TO BE TAKEN FOLLOWING APPROVAL <br /> None. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> KERRY S LLIVAN <br /> DIRECTOR <br /> IRECTOR <br /> DEVSVC/PA-04-192(BOS) <br /> C: Robert and Judy Kent <br /> Attachments : Draft P. E. Minutes ; Appeal ; Staff Report <br />