Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM10288181-~ a, --_____-=====October 28,-1981_________________ should utilize the,"Aunt Minnie° in order to meet the conditions. He felt this type of condition was a rezone and with a-.rezoz~e_you have other lroeeedings-you have to meet in order to meet that accomplishment. Steve Streeter, planning, stated the Planning staff would like direction if they are going to deny this. There is another project in process which is in"A-160" and is less than the 150 acres. This is not a unique circumstance and they need direction. Supervisor Lemke stated in the neighborhood of Mr. Hare there are a number of parcels that are not three acres. They are defacto to their own size as well. Mr. Siemsen stated when a zoning is placed on an area there is the possibility they are not legal by the previous zoning and they are nonconforming in size. In other areas you have sub-standard lots and you place stiff conditions because of the size. They recognize they are sub-standard, but do not prohibit the use of them. He does not take the position to iet them go down. Supervisor Lemke stated they are defacto and nonconforming and zoning does not apply. The applicant applied for a variance through the procedures and now they are told they must deny it. He did not feel this was fair. The individual did not state he planned to split the property. There is a road physically splitting the property. Supervisor Dolan stated she did not agree. She was looking at the time line when the other lots were put there. It was originally zoned "A-2" and the lots were smaller. It was two lots and it would remain two. Now it creates a situation where it is physically split and she %questioned if that was special circumstances or a variance. The variance procedures are very specific. The county does not review private roads for design of Lots that they are legal. This is not the first request, nor will it be the Last. It started to be a driveway, now it is a road splitting the parcel. Supervisor Wheeler stated there is the same problem in Cohasset. The vote on the Day request was 3 to 2. People are waiting in that area to have the door opened so they can make their requests to split because of special circumstances. Supervisor Saraceni stated there are circumstances that do deprive ownership of their property. And that property had been in at the time of that zoning. The dwellings were existing at the time of the zoning. He felt they should make their decision and make a change to the law. On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Chairman Moseley and carried, finding that the proposed variance to the minimum parcel size will not have a significant effect on tfie environment that a negative declaration was approved; further finding that because of the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of Chapter 2G of the Butte County Code deprives the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property: in - the vicinity under identical zoning classifications; the variance appeal to a minimum lot size for the Richard F. Hare property,. AP 64-65--14, property located on the north side of Magalia-Nimshew Road at Carnegie Road, north of Paradise was upheld; subject to the following conditions: _. Two resulting parcels are to be created, one on each side of Smokey Way. Page 386. October 28, 1981 October 28, 1981 81- 2. Parcels shall he created pursuant to the-State Suhdivision Map Act Chapter ~ ', 20 of the Butte County Code. (pPW) 3. Any development shall comply with. applicable regulations of Butte County ', Department of Public Health, and County Sewage Disposal Ordinance. (DEH) 4. Obtain letter from the Del Oro Water Company indicating-water will be and can be provided to Parcel 2. (the westerly parcel). (DEH) 5. Applicant must also comply with all other applicable State and local statutes, ordinances and regulations. AYES: Supervisors Lemke, Saraceni and Chairman Moseley ', NOES: Supervisors Dolan and Wheeler 12620 PUBLIC HEARING: WILLIAM R. STARK APPEAL OF THE. PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE TO MINIMUM LOT AREA REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF A 2.55 AND A 3.01 ACRE PARCEL'IN THE "A-20" (AGRICULTURAL - 20 ACRE PARCELS.) ZONE, AP 39-39-72, PROPERTY LOCATED ON ', THE SOUTH SIDE OF EDGAR SLOUGH, APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET SOUTH OF THE INTER- '. SECTION OF STANIIEY ANA DIAMOND AVENUES TWO MILES SOUTHEAST OF CHICO ', The public hearing on the William R. Starr appeal of the Planning ', Commission's denial of negative declaration and variance to minimum lot area requirements to allow the creation of a 2.55 and a 3.01 acre parcel in the "A-20" (agricultural - 20 acre parcels) zone, AP 39-39-72, property located on the south side of Edgar Slough, approximately 400 feet south of the intersection of Stanley and Diamond Avenues, two miles southeast of Chico was held as continued. Steve Streeter, planning, stated they had staff findings and the of the Planning Commission. Supervisor Dolan stated the easement was granted May 11, 1979 four years after the property was zoned "A-20". Because that was a dispute the statement was the same as a previous request. Hearing open to the public. Appearing: 1. Mrs. William Starr, applicant, stated the entire property is a portion of the Stanley Subdivision. The zoning cut their property into a triangle on this parcel because of Comanche Creek. The portion on the other side of the creek is into the "A-20" zone. They are concerned about the 212 acre parcel which existed prior to their purchase. There will be no problem with utilities, telephone, gas, electricity or-the Health Depart- ment. They have special circumstances. The Planning Commission would allow them to put in a mobile home. Their son was hurt in an industrial accident and is confined to a wheel chair and mobile homes do not aceomodate them. They are getting older and would like their son to be independent. He needs emergency care occasionally. She is concerned with inflation today and his workmans compensation and social security may not be sufficient in the future. Mrs. Starr set out the background of their struggle to achieve their sons independence from them. She did not give this background information to the Planning Commission at their hearing. 2. Ms. Nancy Dunham, Chico, stated her property was adjacent to the Starr property. She is supportive of the variance. Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board. Supervisor Dolan stated the requirements they must follow are for ecial circumstances. This family has very unique circumstances. The ease- nt created was one where the property _owner did not have a choice. Page 387. October. 28, 1981 October 28, 1981 - 2621 :-~=- _ There is open space on the other side. She was convinced if anyone looked at the situation, they were not making a precedent to erode the agriculture on the east side. Supervisor Wheeler stated it was a corner which abutted the edge of the slough. They do not want to farm the property. She felt they could make the finding regarding the topography. On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni and unanimously carried, noting that the requirements of CEQA. have been completed and considered in making this decision, a negative declaration is recommended; further finding by the requirement of the Butte County Code Section 2L~-1~9 that there are special circumstances to the shape of the parcel and it is strict application of the zoning classification and Government Code Section 65911; the appeal of the variance to create a 2.55 acre and a 3.01 acre parcel in an "A-20" zone on AP 39-39-72 Baas upheld; subject to the following conditions: l.. Parcels shall be created pursuant to the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Aet and Chapter 20 of the Butte County Code. 2. Adequate area for sewage disposal as required in Chapter 20 of the Butte County Gode must be proven on both parcels prior to approval of the land division. 3, Applicant must also comply with all other applicable State and local statutes, ordinances and regulations. RECESS: 9:50 a.m. RECONVENE: 10:03 a.m. ADOPT RESOLUTION $1-255 - SUBMLSSION OF COUNTY JAIL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION The discussion regarding the County Jail Capital Expenditure Grant Program application was held as continued. Supervisor Dolan stated they are ready to the needs and the submission of the application. She was concerned about financing the project. Gerald Lively, deputy administrative officer, stated they had continued their meetings on the grant application. Gene McFarren the architect has a new proposal to present. Tt would take care of the existing problem in the jail and they"could make plans for almost all of the construct- ion except Minimum Type II. Plan II comes close to the requirements for the number of beds in ten years of 233. The problem with bed space is with the dollar amount. The two dorms together would have 74 beds. The other acquisition of bed space is the acquiring of jail space in the existing facility. There would be relocation of the walls. He felt and thought Captain Albert would agree to Plan TT being their recommendation. The grant is for X10 million. They now have $500,000 appropriated which could be placed on the lease and it would leave remaining ~897,3~.1, in additian to the match. Should the grant be approved they could begin construction at approximately this time next year. 1n July or August it would be appropriate to go out to bid and the Board could consider the bids. That is.the intent of Plan II. Plan I is the same time frame with a X310,000 difference. They could go a long time before they convert to the dorms. It would take care of both the heating and ventilation problems. Gene McFarren, architect, stated by going with this project it will allow them in the future to meet other project plans such as remodeling. The problem they have had is leaving one of the most expensive items in Fage 3gg, October 28, 1981 October 28, 1981 81- Title II security out of the plans. You cannot build a shell. The single $', sells are high security. They have the opportunity to get the grant and should there be more funding they could handle that on the local level. To build the°,high security would be one lump. The other you would have to take one at a time. Mr. Lively stated the competition for the grant is very keen. It will be on a point system, The X10 million is the maximum they could receive. Supervisor Wheeler stated they could deny the grant. They have nothing to lose by making the application. If they do .not get the grant they will be faced with how to bring the jail up to the basic requirements. She felt the electorates should be given the information that will be on the June ballot regarding the funding of jails. Supervisor Lemke stated he dial not feel there would be a problem passing the bills. The people want the criminals off the streets and they have strictex courts. Hopefully they will have the facility to put them there. ' Mr. McFarren stated the grant would address the Needs Assessment Study. If they do not, some of the money funded now will have to be put into the jail immediately to attempt to correct the cooling, heating and plumbing problems. Mr. Lively stated the applic•atior~.s due into the state on Friday. They will be prioritized by November 22 and the final decision by December 16. It was moved by Supervisor Lemke, seconded by Supervisor Dolan, the preparation of the grant application for the jail capital expenditure under Plan II be authorized, Supervisor Saraceni stated he wanted to make it clear they are under no obligation in any way. They will make the decision at any time. Once the grant is awarded, it is their decision to go ahead and proceed. If they do not have the money, they can turn it down. Supervisor Dolan stated she has talked with other counties regard- ing their law suits and the struggle they have to meet the Health and Safety standards in their jails. Nohe of the counties have been able to afford it. Supervisor Lemke stated they have a Needs Assessment that will be hammered over their heads should they be taken to court in any ease. Supervisor Saraceni felt the county was doing what they could do with what they had, if they made no effort he would agree. They could start to make the necessary improvements. Supervisor Lemke stated if he wad a lawyer, he would take the county budget into court and. say there it is. He felt if they were going to apply for the grant, they better assume that on December 16th they are going to come up with X8}7,000. Otherwise there is no sense in applying. They must be ready to take it from the reserve or allow money for it. There has been a lot of work on behalf of Mr. Lively, Mr. McFarren and Captain Albert, If he is not ready to take the X900,000 out of the reserve to match the grant request, do not waste their time. There will be discussions by the financial people between now and December. There is talk of revenue bonds and investing the money. Page 389. October 28, 1981 81- b 2622 #~I October 28, 1981 Supervisor Saraceni stated they have X1.9 million in the reserve and it is lower than it has ever been. They have gone into the insurance reserve. If they go too low they may have to go out purchase insurance which will be much higher. He is supportive, if it is available. He feels they should evaluate where the money will be coming from. Possibly they could sell some property such as by the Paradise dump site. Maybe it could be sold on terms and not a cash basis. Supervisor Lemke suggested possibly Mr. Lively could get together with Mr. Johansen and Mr. Morton regarding property that is no longer necessary. He feels that during budget sessions in 1982-83 they will have bigger problems than this year. Next year they will be short as they must come up with ~/~00,000 for the library payment. Next year it will either come out of the reserve or services. Supervisor Lemke withdrew his previous motion at this time. It was moved by Supervisor Lemke, the Needs Assessment as submitted was approved; the construction project as planned was approved; the submission of the grant application to the state was authorized; the Chairman authorized to sign the application document; the Chairman authorized to sign the Fair Employee Practices of Form J-/~; and Resolutmon 81-258 appropriating the matching funds to complete the project if funds are awarded was adopted and the Chairman authorized to sign.. Supervisor Saraceni stated his problem was with them appropriating the necessary funds should the grant be awarded. chose to. Moseley Supervisor Lemke stated they could rescind the resolution if they Motion seconded by Supervisor Wheeler. Vote an motion: AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Lemke, Saraceni, Wheeler and Ghaixman Motion carried. CONTINUE TO OCTOBER 3, 1981 - DISCUSSION.REGARDING THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE PARADISE AND OROVILLE JUSTICE COURTS AND THE BIGGS AND GRIDLEY JUSTICE COURTS Chairman Moseley stated on the consolidation of the Paradise and Oroville Judicial Courts she was the deciding vote. She made her decision because she had not received any telephone calls pro or con. Last night and this morning the calls were still coming in voicing their displeasure over the consolidation. Supervisor Lemke asked that it be placed on the regular agenda on Tudsday and let the people who are upset voice their complaints and differences. Continued to Tuesday November 3, 1981 at 2:00 p.m. consideration of the consolidation of the justice courts in Paradise, Oroville, Biggs and Gridley. 1. Henry McCall, Oroville, stated he had earlier voiced his opinion on the consolidation and was in favor. The facility in Oroville is not adequate at this time. He suggested they have one municipal court in Butte County with two judges. As economics go down the crime rate goes up. He felt the Victims Witness Bill was loin to pass. ag 39~. October 28, 1981 81- ~' =______-__===--October 28i1~81________________ Discussion was held at this time regarding the terms of judges in the municipal and judicial courts. Mike Pyeatt, assistant administrative officer, stated the municipal courts are formed on population and judgeships on the State. Judges are placed on the request of a county, petition or perhaps a recommendation of the Judicial Council. 2, Dr. Patterson, Oroville, spoke regarding Judge Rix and the consolidation of Paradise and Oroville Courts. He felt it was illegal. He felt it would be more costly. Dr. Patterson presented data to the Board members at this time. 3. Brigham Jones, Paradise, stated he is a deputy in the District Attorney's Office but is speaking as a citizen. He is concerned about the costs involved in the consolidation. He is opposed. He feels there will be delays. A municipal court judges salary and staff salaries would be increased. SUPERVISORS DOLAN AND 'WHEELER ABSENT AT THIS TIME N.Ix•. Jones stated Judge Rix has not been able to handle the load in the two courts. There have been visiting judges and delays. He did not feel the county had the funds to build a new facility in Oroville to house the court. The county recently remodeled the building in Paradise. He will not be able to appear next Tuesday, but will submit a letter. Dr. Patterson stated he was concerned about the crimes in the state and county. He was deprived his rights by the Assessor under SB '10. 4. Evelyn Reeder, Oroville, stated she would be present at the meeting next week. 5. Al Stiffle, Oro-Bangor, Oroville, stated he was surprised at the vote to consolidate the courts. He did not feel it would save money. He questioned if they could assure him there would not be a new court building. He did not think the consolidation would help the people or decrease the expenses. He felt it was part of the game. Supervisor Lemke stated he resents the accusations he is alluding to. It was not a game and he did not vote for the consolidation because of an endorsement for Sheriff."~•If he is alluding to this he was asking for a lawsuit. SUPERVISOR WHEELER PRESENT AT THIS TIME Supervisor Lemke stated ~6,b00 would be saved with the :.consolidation and that is what he voted on. The Board took two different sides on the financial savings. He was the only one voting consistently. He was glad it came out in the open. SUPERVISOR MOSELEY ABSENT AT THIS TIME Supervisor Lemke stated he hoped the newspaper would clear up some of the issues that are being discussed by the public which are inaccurate. ADJOURNMENT There being nothing further before the Board at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 11:20 a.m. to reconvene on Tuesday, November 3, 19$1 at 9:00 a.m. ATTEST: CLARK A. NELSON, COUNTY CLERK- RECORD and ex-officio Clerk ,~ Board of Superv~i~'rs Chairman, Board of 9 pervisor~ By Page 391. October 28, 191