DATE: August 6, 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. 4164 (Appellant/Applicant: Vincent and Lynn Napoli)
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
TITLE
Consider appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of Variance Application No. 4164 proposing to allow for the creation of a 1.4-acre parcel and an 18.6-acre parcel from an existing 20.00-acre parcel, in the AE-20 (Exclusive Agricultural, 20-acre minimum parcel size) Zone District.
The subject parcel is located on the southeast corner of Maple Avenue and Clayton Avenue, approximately two miles from the nearest city limit of Fresno (APN: 334-310-06) (6532 S. Maple Avenue).
REPORT
This item comes before your Board on appeal of the Planning Commission’s unanimous denial (8 to 0 with one Commissioner absent) at its May 16, 2024 hearing. Department staff notes that 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 1.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
If your Board is able to make the required Findings for granting Variance Application No. 4164 (VA), 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 Appellant/Applicant has paid $6,749 in land use processing fees to the County for the processing of the Variance Request. The Appellant/Applicant paid $508 in fees to appeal the Planning Commission’s denial.
DISCUSSION:
The proposal is to allow for the creation of a 1.4-acre parcel and an 18.6-acre parcel from an existing 20.00-acre parcel, in the AE-20 (Exclusive Agricultural, 20-acre minimum parcel size) Zone District. The Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment B) dated May 16, 2024, includes background information about the proposal.
Per section 860.5.060.C of the Fresno County Zoning Ordinance in order for your Board to approve VA No. 4164, 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.
At its May 16, 2024 hearing, the Planning Commission considered the Department’s Staff Report, presentation, and testimony from the Applicant/Owner’s representative. It should be noted that Staff, in its report to the Commission, was unable make Finding Nos.1, 2, and 4. After the Planning Commission considered public testimony from the Applicants and the Public, a motion was made to adopt staff’s recommendation to deny Variance Application 4164 based on the inability to make the required findings.
An appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial was filed by the Appellant on May 31, 2024. The appeal document (Attachment C) indicated that the appellant was not provided the opportunity to present the option of restricting a home site on the remaining parcel of agricultural land. Staff should note that, per state Law, the County cannot prohibit residential use on agricultural land via covenant.
The Appellant argued at the Planning Commission that the property could have been divided under General Plan Policy LU-A.9 if the parents of the property owner had applied for a gift deed to gift a portion of the property to the appellant before their passing in 2008 and 2022. That application was not submitted, and a gift deed parcel is no longer applicable.
If your Board is able to make the required Findings for granting approval of VA No. 4164, a motion to uphold the appeal and approve the variance would be appropriate (stating in the 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.
Staff also notes that should the Variance be approved; the Variance will expire one year from the date of the Board’s approval unless a mapping application to create the parcel is filed. Where circumstances beyond the control of the applicant cause delays, the Commission may grant a maximum of two one-year time extensions.
If your Board is unable to make the required Findings for granting VA No. 4164, a motion to deny the appeal and deny the variance would be appropriate.
ATTACHMENTS INCLUDED AND/OR ON FILE:
Attachments A - D
CAO ANALYST:
Salvador Espino