Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-063~. ~'~. f~''Y Q~' ~3UTTE, S~'TATE: CAF C,AL~F'URf~11A Resolufi~n No. 08-063 A RESOLUTION OF THE BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DENYING AN APPEAL ON THE DENIAL OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVSION MAP TPM06-0034 WHEREAS, the Butte County Planning Commission considered Tentative Parcel Map TPM06-0034, on Assessor's Parcel Number 042-130-016 in accordance with Chapter 20; Subdivisions, of the Butte County Code; and an initial study and proposed mitigated negative declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, for Dennis and Jackie Furry; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on said project on February 28, 2008; and WHEREAS, said map was referred to various affected public and private agencies, County departments, and referral agencies for review and comments; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered public comments and a staff report from the Planning Division; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission thereafter denied approval of said map per Butte County Planning Commission. Resolution 08-12; and WHEREAS, an appeal from Dennis and Jackie Furry of the Planning Commission's denial of the project on February 28, 2008 was received in a timely manner and with the appropriate fees; and WHEREAS, said map had been referred to various affected public and private agencies, County departments, and referral agencies for review and comments; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing of the Board of Supervisors was held on May 6, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has considered public comments, reports from the Planning Division, the findings of Planning Commission, and the appeal letter on record: NOW. "fi lI;I~IFORF. BE I"I~ RC~`~OLVEI~. that the Butte County Board of Supervisors: Denies the appeal It-om Dennis and Jackie Furry on the Planning Commissions February 28, 2008 denial of tentative parcel map TPM 06-0034, by making the followin<, findings of I-act: ~. ~fhe project is inconsistent with the "OFC" General Plan designation because it does not meet Criteria #1 of the OFC General Plan Conditional Zoning and Development Criteria as follows: Predominant existingparcel size ranges from 5 to 10 acres. (I) The six parcels immediately adjacent to the project parcel range in size from 6.6 to 30 acres and average 17.15-acres in size. T11ese data indicate that the project is inconsistent with the OFC general plan designation because the predominant existing parcel size is larger than the 5 to 10-acre range required to satisfy this criterion. (2) The 29 parcels within a '/4 mile radius from the project parcel range in size from 0.44 to 39.11 acres and average 10.57 acres in size. "These data indicate that the project is inconsistent with the OFC general plan designation because the predominant existing parcel size is larger than the 5 to 10-acre range required io satisfy this criterion. B. "The proposed map is inconsistent with the following Butte County General Plan Agricultural Element Goais and Policies: GOAL 1 Maintain parcel sizes that ensure the long-tens preservation, conservation and continuit}% of those general plan areas identified as Orchard and Field Crops and Grazing and Open Lands. The ~~r-o~~osed project is raol cof~sisterat ti~~ith the intent ~~f Goul 1 af~d Policti~ L 6 he~ause i1 enables 5 acre,r~arcels ti~•hich generally J»°o~~ide less preser~°atior~. eonseri~ation, aid cat~ti~~uit~° of ar-iczrltural uses. If the proposed ~~arcels mere to he_fenced, n~hich is an allo~~°ed ri~~,~ht in the gone, maintenance of the orchards would he less practical o~~er- tiia~e. Additionally, a~pro>>al of the mup could ~~l-ovide u precedent for , further suhdi~~ision of agricultural land on adjucent ~.~m•eels. . Policy 1.6 Limit the minimum parcel sizes for new land divisions, in areas identified as Orchard and Field Crops on the General Plan Land Use Map, to not less than the existing zoning designations from 5 to 160 acres. The densities currently established by the existing zoning on Orchard and Field Crops lands shall be the minimum lot size allowable. Further subdivision of Orchard and Field Crops lands are discouraged. 2 The /~ro~~osccl n~rup co~atrihutes to a sntuller lot-.~~i_e Iaj~cl use ~~~rtter~~ ~a~hich t~~~der-»aitaes the ho2mcla~y het~~~eeaa the ('itv of Chico a17d the u~;l•icultlrrul luncls to the l~~est. A~~~rural of~the mu~~ coirlc~~~ro7•ic~e preeeclc>>tt for fial-ther- ,~~uhdirisiun o_f a~r•icuhural lut~cl u~~ adjacent ~~urceLs~. GOAL 2 C`ouserve and stabilize agricultural land uses at city and community boundaries i~7 order to protect agricultural lands from encroachment and conversion to urban uses. Policy 2.1 Agriculture shall not be Tmade inviable by the economic impacts of urban development. GOAL 3 Support the management of agricultural lands in an efficient., economical manner, with minimal conflict from non- agricultural uses. Policy 3.1 Apply the County's Right to Farm Ordinance to all non- agricultural land use approvals, including building permits, within or adjacent to designated agricultural areas. Policy 3.S The primary purpose of the C)rchard and Pield Crop and Grazing and Open Lands land use categories shall be for agricultural production, related processing. and services in support of agriculture. Residential uses, such as the farmer's home, in these categories are secondary uses and are permitted on a limited basis to assist and support agriculture. Policy 3.6 Carefully locate residential lands where limited agricultural uses and farm animals are allowed, to avoid conflicts with agricultural operations. Policy 3.7 Ensure that pre-existing lots, uses, and buildings which were legal prior to the adoption of the Agricultural Element are permitted to conlinue. If the proposed pc~n-cels ti~~ere to he.fer~ced, i~~hieh is alp al1o~~~ed rihhl i» thc~ .gone, Ia~ait7tet~anee of the orchards ~~~uuld he less practical Ol'el" tl)YTC'. The ek'LSt119~~ pal'Cel b'l.e Of to 14 aereS [S 19~10rC' eaSlJ)~ l~7anaged f lr agricultural purposes than tm~o, fire acres pcrrcets. GOAL 7 Support appropriate amounts of farm worker and farm family housing in agriculturally zoned areas. Policy 7.1 1~~ork with agricultural land owners to provide appropriate amounts. at reasonable densities, of farm labor and farm family housing. The ,fire arrc Iut.e hroh~~sed u~~/~eu~~ z~l~rlikcly .ti~ites fr~r~ hoz~.ti~ir~,~ uffnrduhle rte furra~~r~u~kers due !« /heir /~rorinrity ~o hi,~~h-va/ue resider~tiul. 77~e site is crn•rera111~ used ft~r sinle-firtnily reside~~tiul ua~its. C. The Office of the Butte County Agricultural Commissioner reviewed this project and provided comments that: "In this case the buffer retluirement is compromised, but subdivision of this parcel will, nevertheless, impact the existing agricultural resource, in that; subdivision of agricultural parcels, to this range of sire, reduces the viability of the resource to such small incrementa] components that the land can no longer support an agricultural endeavor_ except I~r extremely specialized operations which are very rare." "Subdivision of this parcel will not contribute to the conservation of the stability of adjacent agricultural land use. Subdivision of this parcel will diminish the viability of the agricultural resource."" D~ This project, located on the agricultural side of the Chico Area Greenline of the Land Use Element of the Butte County Genera] Plan, is inconsistent with the following three components of the Chico Area Greenline Policy of the General Plan: 1. Establishment of Chico Area Land Use Policies (Page LUE-80) In order ro minimise the ads°erse effects ~~'laic°h prema~t~re and i~7aphropriu~e co3~~~crsion lr~ w•ban hind z~,ces are Tikely 1« cause 10 the u~;ricultarral lands i11 the Chico area r1f 13ttlte Cc~ur~ly, the follola~ing ~~nlices are hereby ado~a~ed as Karl of the I ~rnd ZLsc Element of~Ihe Butte County General Plan, appli~uhle !o the Chico ,1rca cif the Count~~. The Board finds that this project constitutes a premature and inappropriate conversion of agricultural land to urban land uses, pursuant to the above section of the Greenline Policy. While not making findings on the Greenline policy specifically, the Planning Commission found that "The proposed map contributed to a smaller lot size land use pattern which undermines the boundary between the City of Chico and the agricultural lands to the west. t~pprovai of the map could provide a precedent far further subdivision of agricultural land on adjacent parcels.'' 4 Establishment of the Chico Area Grcenline (Page l.l_!1-:-K;} E.xcc~9t us ~~roi~ided for in suhsc~ction (d), of this section, ul1 lu9ul 9.ase nn the A,ricultural .tide of the Chico Area Grcenline ,Shull consist solely ofAgricultw~al land 9~rse,c u~s•l9ro>>ided by tl9e (h•c19cu•d and Field Cron designation (emphasis added). 3 The L~oard finds that the land uses proposed by this project are not solely "agricultural" as provided by the Orchard and Field Crop designation_ consistent with the above section of the Grcenline Policy. The project parcel has two existing dwellings. These d~~cllings are allowed secondary uses in the OFC land use designation. One of these dwellings was established in 19$9 as a farmworker residence (per }3utte County Code Section 2~-90 {a) (5). Approximately the westenl2/3 of the existing l 0-acre site is occupied by an almond orchard. "f,he intent of the tentative parcel map is to divide the existing uses into two separately salable properties that appear to be predominantly residential in use. Because the project proposes predominantly residential uses, the F3oard linds that the project is incompatible with the objectives, policies, and general land uses specified in the section of the Chico Area Grcenline Policy referenced above, in that all land use on the Agricultural side of the Chico Area Grcenline shall consist solely of '`agricultural'' land uses as provided by the Orchard and Field Crop designation. Page LUE-82 Establishment of Chico Area Grcenline Residential land uses rnuy occur on the .~lgricultt~rul Side of the Chico Area Grcenline onh~ ~~~ithin those areas desixnated far A~ricuhural Residential use on the t)fficiul Chico Area Grcenline ~t1a~~ (emphasis added). Page LUE-80 Definition: "Ag9-icultural Residential " lurid "Agricultural Residential " Lund County Lund Use Element us it at97ended It"0191 tTt99e to torte. use designation rneu99s the u,s•e designation of tl~e B9rtte existing on A~urch ~, 1982, us 5 Since this project proposes division of an existing parcel for the purpose of creating., i~~~o separately salable properties that appear to be primarily residential in use, the project is primarily "Agricultural-Residential'" in nature and should be allowed only in an area designated Agricultural Residential. This parcel was not designated Agricultural EZesidential in 1982 and is not designated so at this time. Based on this analysis, the Board finds the project to be inconsistent with the applicable sections of the Chian Area Ureenline Policy. DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of May, 2x08, by the fallowing vote: AYES: Supervisors Connelly, Dolan and Kirk NOES: Supervisor Yamaguchi and Chair Josiassen ABSEN"1': None ABSTAIN: None ~ 1~ i CURsT <InSIASSEN. Chair Butt.e``County Board of Supervisors ATTEST: C. BRIAN I~ADL7-1X. Chief Administr~ive Of`fieer and Clerk of;~he 13a~rdr~ i ~ ~~ Bv: -. _ ~~ 1;; ~~ L r . / Deputy 6