DATE: January 23, 2024
TO: Board of Supervisors
SUBMITTED BY: Steven E. White, Director
Department of Public Works and Planning
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission’s denial of Variance Application No. 4145 (Appellant: Rosemary Cordero; Applicant: Nick Sahota; Property Owner: Rosemary and Juan Cordero Jr.)
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
TITLE
Consider appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of Variance Application No. 4145 proposing to allow the creation of a two-acre and a 14.30-acre parcel from an existing 16.30-acre parcel in the AE-20 (Exclusive Agricultural, 20-acre minimum parcel size) Zone District.
The subject parcel is located east side of S. Fowler Avenue, 615-feet south of E. Rose Avenue, approximately 2.60 miles west from the nearest city limits of the City of Selma (APN: 385-031-69) (11624 S. Fowler Avenue) (Sup. Dist. 4).
REPORT
This item comes before your Board on appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the subject application at its October 26, 2023 hearing. Department Staff notes the Zoning Ordinance requires your Board to determine, independent from the decision of the Planning Commission, whether the application should be approved, approved with stated conditions, or denied. A copy of the Planning Commission’s action is included as Attachment A. This item pertains to a location in District 4.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
If your Board is able to make the required Findings for granting Variance Application (VA) No. 4145, a motion to uphold the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission’s decision, stating the basis for making the Findings would be appropriate.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no Net County Cost associated with the recommended action. Pursuant to the County’s Master Schedule of Fees, the Applicant/Owner has paid $6,460 in land use processing fees to the County for the processing of the Variance Request. The Appellant paid $508 in fees to appeal the Planning Commission’s denial.
DISCUSSION:
The proposal is to allow the creation of a two-acre and a 14.30-acre parcel, from an existing 16.30-acre parcel (gross acreage), in the AE-20 (Exclusive Agricultural, 20-acre minimum parcel size) Zone District. The two-acre parcel currently accommodates an existing single-family residence, with the owners’ intent to sell off the remaining 14.30-acre agricultural parcel. The Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment B) dated October 26, 2023, includes background information about the proposal.
In order for your Board to approve VA No. 4145, the following findings must be made:
1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved which do not apply generally to other property in the vicinity having the identical zoning classification; and
2. Such Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the vicinity having the identical zoning classification.
3. The granting of a Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property and improvement in the vicinity in which the property is located.
4. The granting of such a Variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan.
Staff was unable to make all four required findings in order to recommend approval of the VA No. 4145 to the Planning Commission.
At its March 9, 2023 hearing, a motion was made by Commissioner and unanimously approved to continue the hearing to a date uncertain to allow the Applicant to determine if other alternatives excluding a Variance are feasible to allow the owner to create additional homes for their family.
At its October 26, 2023 hearing, the Planning Commission reheard the item, considered the staff report, presentation, and testimony from the Applicant/Owner’s representative. After the Planning Commission considered public testimony, a unanimously vote of the six Commissioners in attendance (two absent, one vacancy) voted to deny the application based on the inability to make the required Finding Nos. 1, 2, and 4 as discussed in the Staff Report.
An appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial was filed by the Appellant on November 8, 2023. The appeal document (Attachment C) does not state a reason for the appeal other than to describe their personal circumstance and request the Board approve the variance.
If your Board is able to make the required Findings for granting approval of VA No. 4145, a motion to uphold the appeal and approve the variance would be appropriate (stating in its motion the manner in which the four required Findings can be made) subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval (Attachment D) and any additional conditions your Board determines appropriate.
If your Board is unable to make the required Findings for granting VA No. 4145, a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of the project would be appropriate.
ATTACHMENTS INCLUDED AND/OR ON FILE:
Attachments A - D
CAO ANALYST:
Salvador Espino