HomeMy WebLinkAboutM052786z7 , ~ 486
Ca11 to order - Board of Supervisors room, County Administration
Building, 26 County Center Drive, Oroville. Present:
Supervisors Dolan, McInturf, and Chairman McLaughlin; and Rubye
Tawns1ey, deputy clerk of the Board. A1sa present: Planning
Director Bettye Kircher; Planning Commissioners Lynch, Lambert,
Walter, and Vercruse; and Lynn Richardson, secretary.
Absent: Supervisors Wheeler and Fulton.
86-308
86-- 3O9
Does the Board support the current procedure of rezoning required
by the "U" zone or prefer an accelerated conversion program?
(SUPERVISOR FULTON PRESENT AT THIS TIME.)
Motion: DIRECTED PLANNING COMMISSION TO ENTER INTO HEARINGS TO
AMEND THE "U" ZONE WITH AN ORDINANCE WHICH STATES "ANY
LAND DIVISION IN THE "U" ZONES SHRLL BE CONDITIONED UPON
PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE REZONING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
TO A CURRENTLY VALID ZONE WHICH PERMITS PARCELS OF THE
SIZE REQUESTED AND WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH TWE GENERAL
PLAN," AND THEN BRING IT FORWARD TO THE BOARD FOR THE
FINAL HEARINGS.
M S
Vote: l Y 2 Y 3 AB 4 Y 5 Y (Nation carried)
Moratoriums:
a. Does the Board support the consideration of moratoriums on
parcel maps, tentative/final maps when requested by service
districts or Board appointed task farces?
(DISCUSSED. NO ACTION TAKEN.)
Page 408
May 27, 1986
86-310
86-311
86-312
Advisory Agency.
a. Is the Board satisfied with the coordination between the
Advisory Agency policy implementation and the Planning
Commission policy implementation?
b. Would the Board want to consider designating the Planning
Commission the Advisory Agency's responsibilities?
c. If not, would the Board want to consider designating the
Planning Commission the appeal Board (to hear appeals from
the Advisory Agency decisions) for subdivisions?
d. Should members of the Planning Commission attend Advisory
Agency meetings to familiarize themselves. with subdivision
activity?
{DISCUSSED. NO ACTION TAKEN. HOWEVER, IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF
THE BOARD AS FOLLOWS: a. - YES; b. - N0; c - N0; d. - YES,
PROVIDED A COMMISSIONER WANTED 70 ATTEND. ANOTHER ITEM, "e" WAS
ADDED: SHOULD .THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE ADVISORY AGENCY
MEET? CONSENSUS: YES.)
Zoning Administration:
a. Will the board support the Planning Commission in requiring
Code Sec. 24-44 on variances and use permits to insure that
all conditions are completed or bonded prior to occupancy?
b. Does the board subscribe to the policy that use permits and
variances can be 'favorably` considered even though construction
may have commended (without, appropriate permits) and zoning
requirements violated?
c. Would the Board want the Planning Commission to investigate
the alternative of a Zoning Administrator?
{SUPERVISOR WHEELER PRESENT AT THIS TIME.)
(DISCUSSED. NO ACTION TAKEN. CONSENSUS WAS: a. - YES; b. -
N0; c. - YES.)
Recess: 10:47 a.m.
Reconvene: 11:07 a.m.
Airport Land Use Commission:
(DISCUSSED. NO ACTION TAKEN.)
Page 409
May 27, 19$6
86-313 Spheres of influence:
a. What responsibilities does the Board consider to be the
county's, to plan far cities within their spheres?
(DISCUSSED. NO ACTION TAKEN.}
56-314 A-5 and A-10 zoning west of Chico urban area.
(DISCUSSED. NO ACTION TAKEN.)
86-315 Closed hearing - Butte County Board of Supervisors - proposed
negative declaration and amendment to Chico Area General Plan
Policy Statement to allow the consideration of all agricultural
zones in the orchard and field crop designation for the Chico
Urban Rrea on property zoned U (unclassified), A-5, A-TO, A-20,
A--40 (agricultural - 5, 10, 20, 40 acre parcels} Located in the
Chico Urban Area (File 85-66}. (from 5/20/86)
Motion: TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION THAT BORRD WOULD NOT CHANGE THE
POLICY STATEMENT ATTACHED TO THE CHICO URBAN AREA GENERAL
PLAN.
S M
Vote: I Y 2 Y 3 N 4 N 5 N (Motion failed)
(CLOSED HEARING CONTINUED TO JUNE 3, 1986.)
Adjournment: There being nothing further before the Board at
this time the meeting was adjourned at T2:00 noon.
~ ~~
CHAIRMAN, Board of pervisors
ATTEST:
MARTIN J. NICHOLS, Chief Administrative Officer
and Clerk of the Board.
Page 4T 0
May 27, T986