Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Parcel Map topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission Denies Henderson Parcel Map, Citing Jacoby Creek Plan and Water‑service Limits
Summary
The Humboldt County Planning Commission voted 6–1 to deny a proposal to split a 4.6‑acre parcel in the Jacoby Creek Community Plan area into smaller lots, finding the map inconsistent with the general plan, community plan density policies and zoning; staff said a general‑plan amendment would be required to permit the division.
The Humboldt County Planning Commission on a 6–1 roll‑call vote denied the Henderson parcel‑map application, concluding the proposed split would violate the Jacoby Creek Community Plan and county zoning.
Planner Michael Holterman told the commission the applicant sought to split a 4.6‑acre parcel into roughly a 1.6‑acre lot and a 3‑acre lot and requested a minimum‑lot‑size modification. Holterman said the zone’s minimum parcel size is 2.5 acres and the average parcel size in the immediate vicinity is about 2.45–2.48 acres. “The project does not comply with the Humboldt County General Plan, Community Plan, or Zoning Ordinance and deny the parcel map subdivision application,” Holterman said, recommending denial.
The commission’s discussion centered on two recurring issues: public‑health limits tied to septic and water availability, and whether a general‑plan change would be required to permit smaller lots. Staff said the Jacoby Creek policies allow higher density only where public water and sewer are available and that the general plan does not include a variance procedure comparable to a zoning variance; a plan amendment would be the route to change density. Director Ford told commissioners the applicant would need to pursue a general‑plan/community‑plan amendment and supporting studies (groundwater, septic capacity) to reach the requested density.
Applicant co‑owner Larry Henderson argued the matter is a policy question rather than a legal bar and said that prior lot adjustments and discussions with planning staff led the family to expect a different outcome. “This is a policy matter, not a law matter,” Henderson said. He and his agent submitted correspondence they said showed the City of Arcadia had no intention of annexing or providing public water service to the parcel; staff and commissioners noted the city’s current stance does not change the community‑plan policies that guide county findings.
Commissioners pressed staff on precedent and public‑safety concerns that might follow from allowing exceptions. Several commissioners said they were sympathetic to the applicant’s position but concluded the commission was bound to apply the general plan and community plan findings. Commissioner West moved to adopt a resolution that would (a) find the project exempt from environmental review as a disapproved project, (b) find the project inconsistent with the general plan and zoning, and (c) deny the subdivision; Commissioner Kiriazzi seconded the motion.
Roll‑call on the motion produced the following votes: Commissioner McFarland — No; Commissioners Curiazzi, West, O’Neill, Mulder, Levy and Scavdahl — Yes. The motion carried 6–1. Staff told the applicant the commission’s decision can be appealed to the Board of Supervisors or the applicant could pursue the general‑plan amendment path.
What happens next: staff advised the applicant that a general‑plan/community‑plan amendment would require additional technical work (septic/groundwater studies and public outreach) and would take additional time and funding; no alternative approval conditions were adopted tonight.
