The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About82-31 LIVESTOCK IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS 1 OF 1F 1 may.• .... - .. t � et ' mile M �9 r "•J # ` It TQC=t to x' iS 2$Ei 6 {' c 5'� .ter r - u I r, Northern pica a�r�i at - r n ' " a rS�+?L r�Q*,t#i: *off tw A'-*.%0-4mg Persons 1st�8 is$EfSt OU qSA ?data; _ a , 3 Mdrea: Ear?, 91 Monte 4L .sties Cbltr, ig -ri444, Daily A t e:, �#Iero Pletcher, 4891 faar3s RCaA4 Es c Trcy ,fee# owner of W -stem Wesx, 225.2 it St--Zhica .sieve Rocha, Paradise, SM stottxooe � iasis Storey, El Monte- Ave CUto Achard C< BeVore, 9077 41-yway, Paradise, o'bJected :to aAy t)pe of set sks, Na icy Kruger, Chico, sale that sha 414 t 4,terses7 6ut n-0 to having oth*--s do so. _ _ < C issioner 8a=ett said; that the 56 ft, setback grop€ssa rea1y ;std s -ed'- hi -m ar_d asked if it could be enforced. n_ eeler° 'reported that County Counsel hat,, aa7igoa tkat; the- ommissida Fr cannot single out special soups for special concessions =such as 4 FFA, otc. T = 7 -he hearing. bass claced. Commissioner Miler supe- a =tiara todeny, % Us proposal and that the QmmAission. enter ;otos stu&y to atat to anen& the ordiaancee-not dust the mores uuder4 consideration now but to take aL 100 atssi zeas. Kass motion was seconded' by Co3ssiduseraL>s'. AM.; cc=missionevs max, Bennett;, 11"realer,. 4xNeft� - ai ' r Y`. No one_ �, -AT: Flo one; 's. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE January 13, 1982 PRT.ORITIFS i Liv'es:tock in Residential Area Bennett complained about chronic delays of this problem and insisted that the 5R"l Zone be cleaned up immediately, reminding the Commission of the numerous problems in that one area (zone). Ms. Blair's conten- tion was that this problem should be handled along with the Revision of the Zoning Ordinance which is now well underwayo No formal action was taken:. RECESS! 9.00 9,08 P. M. (CoM issieoner Wheeler left the meeting at this time because of a death in his fa;�ily) BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING Comi'lZSCr01R MINUTES - December 16, 1981 13. PRIORITIES j Chairman Max asked for any comments the Commission might have concerning the memo from staff dated December 7, 1981, and noted that Ms. Blair had requested that a.11 Commissioners review the memo, adding that this matter would again appear on the Commission's agenda for January 6 or 13. Commissioner Wheeler reported that the Gridley -Biggs Adzone would go to the Gridley City Council on next Monday, December 21, should be back to the Planning DepartMent soon andquestioned the project's standing as No 11 on the priority list. It ►has explained by staff: that the projects covered by the memorandum were not arranged in ority order; and lie liras assured that the matter�r�ould be on the Commission's agenda as soon as possible, In response to a request from Chairman Maxi he agreed to work with staff on the Zoning proposal. Chairman Maas announced that he and Commissioner Schrader would work as a committee to aid staff in the "Revision of the Zoning Ordinance" -listed in the middle of Page 3 of the progress Report. COMM'sgiOner Schrader also expressed a desire to work on the "Orovi.11e Az rt Plan", but no off :cia-1! action 'teas taken by Chairman Max: ssz,oner Bennett expressed the hope that "Livestock ,n Residential Areas", Page 4, would too be forthcotn�ng_�-Particularly Yor SR -1 zoning areas in Chico. He reported recently noting 53 violations in the Keefer Road area, 17 on E1 Monte Avenue and 15 on l -licks Lane—all, visible without. evengettiftg out of the cap hristophcr O Wilbur presenters a map entitled; 'Afaster Dotrelopment Dian Stud Neal -E uan property, P. y y De8i9ft Croup, Master PlanYConsultant�� f nr Parrot presented b ` s otlithe following letter to the Commission:�' od copies of the BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMISSIOV MIINUTES - Wlcerrber 16, 1981 Parrott Ranch Company 600 Country Drive Chico, CA 95926 r: December 16, 1981 Butte County Planning Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville ;CA 95965 RE: Land Owned by the Parrott Ranch Company in Southeast Chico Dear Commissionersw I am writing to request that you provide for preliminary review of the proposed Central: Buttes Planning Area and provide for a p:reliminary review of the: Parrott Ranch Company property located n.southeast Chico during your 1982 agenda. Accordingly, please find attached a map which shows our property in relation to the proposed. Central, Buttes Planning Area. Wr think that the current proposal: represents appropriate boundaries for the planning area, but we understand that planning staff has not yet made a final decision concerning the boundaries We, therefore, would like to request that you include the following items on your 1982.agendas 1. in January, 1982, that you establish a formal name for the proposed "Central Buttes Planning Area" and that you adopt formal boundaries for that planning area; 2. Also, in SAnuary, 1082, that you adopt a formal resolution which clarifies the. status of our land immediately . adjacunt to the southeast: border of the Chico Area Land Use Plan. As you .recall:; our land in that area received a "down grading" of its land use designation in the Chico area as a means of simplifying the complotion of the Chico Area Land,Use Phan. It, is our understanding that this ''down grading" has been without prejudice to our ability to have a fresh review of the; status of all of our land at the time that the land use plan iii established for the 'Central Buttes Planning Aroa 3. in May, 1982, that you schedule a public hearlkiq so that we may + have a preliminary ; = �y public discussion on sono+ r �i ng the Central Buttes Planningarea; BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COM ISSION MINUTES Docebiber 16, 1681 Thank you very much for your kind consideration in this matter." Yours truly, PARR .RANCHWMPANY Christopher G. Wilbur �r Tom Edgar, 662 t. 7th Avcnue, Chico, attorney for Parrott Ranch)revioWed the major points in the 4etter, calling particular attention to the request for a Formal roSoltitiorilai�ifyxng the statW� of the Parrott property imn mediately adjatont to the southeast border of the Chico Area Land Use ii1 chs.irtan Max remanded Mr. Edgar that the propoSAI is not yet a Plan arict recommended that tie not miss an opportunity to mae his Wants known at the Board level) during upconiitg greenline licarxngs September 30, 1981 anninti COTO& pCrt � Betty Blain GeUornir 7 County Center Drive OrOvtill� Oroville, CA 95965 Dear Ms. Blain, I own property in Butte County that is currently zoned SRI. It has recently come to my attention that the zoning ordinances regarding SR, SR-z, SRI. and SR3 lack continuity regarding the amount of hand area needed for each horse or head of cattle. For. example, SR zoning requires a minimum of 8125 square feet for res - dential use and one acre for each horse or head of cattle; R-12 requires 8125 square feet for residential use and 8125 square feet for each horse or head of cattle; while SRI and SR3 require one acre and three acres respectively for residential use and 8125 square feet for each horse or head of cattle, Why does the same horse or head of cattle require 8125 square feet in one area and an acre in another? Ambiquity and 'lack of continuity in the zoning ordinances re:;rul t in people not conforMi rig to the ordinances , and government agencies enforc;ng them only sporadically, One only needs to travel areas in the aforementioned zoning to see the number of Violations concerning animals and the space required by zoning ordinances. I urge the Butte `County planning Commission to make the necessary revisions in the existing ordinances concerning these matters. `ncc�rely, r Don Steinsiek cc: Nione Tambert Frank Bennett