Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Williamson Act Conversion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advisory committee recommends amendment of long‑running Williamson Act contract for Glenn Gray, adds missing parcel and discusses noncontiguous parcel handling
Summary
The Mariposa County Agricultural Advisory Committee recommended that the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approve an amendment converting an older Williamson Act contract into a Land Conservation Act contract for parcels owned by Glenn Gray, including a late addition of an omitted parcel (APN 011-030-004).
Planning staff presented an amendment application referenced as DIS 202500057 for an assemblage of parcels currently under an older Williamson Act contract that the applicant seeks to convert to a Land Conservation Act (LCA) contract. Staff informed the committee that since packet publication the applicant asked to add one parcel (APN 011-030-004, roughly 364 acres) that had been omitted; staff verified the applicant’s request and updated the total estimated acreage accordingly.
Staff noted a technical question about a noncontiguous parcel in the application and whether the parcel should be included in the same contract or handled as a separate contract under current Board of Supervisors Resolution 10‑150 procedures. Staff advised that because the property remains under the older contract until year end, the applicant could be served by either one combined contract or two separate contracts; staff offered to prepare two contracts if the committee preferred. Tammy Goodhart from the Assessor/Recorder's office indicated there would be no tax‑valuation implication between one vs. two contracts.
Applicant Glenn Gray spoke in support of keeping the parcels under a single contract; committee members discussed precedent concerns and the potential to set expectations for future applicants. Planning staff and the Ag Commissioner’s Office advised that if final approval is delayed past Jan. 1 the request would be treated as a new contract under current rules, which could require separate contracts for noncontiguous parcels.
Action: Committee member Dave moved and Kelly Williams seconded a motion recommending approval of the amendment application to the Planning Commission and Board. The motion carried on a voice vote recorded as "Aye." Staff will follow up with the applicant about Planning Commission hearing logistics and contract preparation.
Context and next steps: Staff emphasized the importance of completing the amendment process before the end of the year so contracts can be prepared and recorded; otherwise a delay may require new contract procedures.
