Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Nonconforming Lotline Workforce topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates nonconforming‑use rules, lot‑line adjustments and workforce‑housing language
Summary
Mariposa County planning staff and commissioners spent the Aug. 8 meeting reviewing proposed nonconforming‑use provisions, lot‑line adjustment rules for substandard parcels, and whether to incorporate workforce housing and alternative housing types (including Title 25) into the county development code.
The Mariposa County Planning Commission on Aug. 8 spent extensive time reviewing proposed code language on nonconforming structures and parcels, lot‑line adjustments, and options for workforce and alternative housing types.
Planning Director Steven and members discussed several recurring concerns: (1) whether nonconforming structures should be allowed a fixed percentage expansion (the draft carries forward a 50 percent rule from current code and staff noted historic 10 percent administrative limits had caused similar conflicts), (2) whether the current 36‑month discontinuance window for legal nonconforming rights should be lengthened (multiple commissioners proposed 5 years), and (3) whether lot‑line adjustments should be permitted when one or more parcels are nonconforming. Staff said the revision should allow director discretion to approve adjustments where findings demonstrate the change improves parcel utility (septic, access, or other site constraints) while preserving county zoning intent.
Commissioners and public commenter Ken Melton raised specific examples of Midpines and Muir Lodge where zoning changes over time left many small, older parcels technically nonconforming and where practical lot‑line adjustments would help property owners create buildable parcels without undermining county density policies. Commissioners asked staff to clarify and tighten the language so that parcel modifications require findings and to remove duplicative or conflicting phrases the draft currently includes.
On housing types, staff reported receipt of public comments recommending local adoption of Title 25 to allow alternative, smaller or factory‑built housing forms (for example, park trailers and yurts). Steven said the state code cycle includes a draft Title 25 recommendation and staff expects a draft to be available in October; commissioners requested staff present that draft to the commission when it becomes available. Staff also noted the county can include workforce‑housing definitions and PUD incentives in the development code to encourage cluster development, while recognizing that allowing increased density without programmatic environmental review could trigger additional CEQA work.
No final code amendments were adopted Aug. 8; commissioners provided direction to staff to (a) revisit the 36‑month/5‑year discontinuance language and align it countywide, (b) reword nonconforming‑parcel and lot‑line adjustment sections to permit adjustments where findings show public benefit or technical necessity, and (c) bring Title 25 / alternative housing draft to the commission for informational presentation when the state draft is available.
