Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Lot Line Adjustment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plumas County continues hearing on resident-led zoning amendment to ease lot-line adjustments in Lake Davis Highlands
Summary
A resident-initiated zoning code amendment that would create a ratio-based exception for minimum lot width was presented Jan. 13; planning staff recommended continuing the public hearing to Jan. 20 to allow the board to consider adoption after technical review.
A resident-driven zoning amendment to allow a width exception for lot-line adjustments in the Lake Davis Highland subdivision drew a detailed presentation from Plumas County planning staff on Jan. 13 and will return to the board on Jan. 20 for further consideration.
Planning Director Tracy Ferguson explained that applicants Robert and Robin Franks asked for a code change because many parcels in the Lake Davis Highlands were created in 1973 at sizes well below the county’s current R-10 minimum acreage and therefore also fail the minimum width test. Ferguson said staff and senior planner Tim Evans developed a formula that calculates a proportionally consistent ‘‘nonconforming width’’ by normalizing parcel length against the minimum-area-to-width ratio used elsewhere in the county code. In the Franks example, a parcel with a measured width of about 131.7 feet would, under the formula, meet a resulting required width of roughly 81.3 feet and thus permit a lot-line adjustment.
Ferguson said the draft ordinance also includes staff-suggested clarifications: explicit references to other county code titles (building and sanitation), a structured definition of ‘‘structure’’ for purposes of setbacks, and an allowance for the planning director to apply the minimums of the next-densest zoning district when neither area nor width can be met. The planning commission voted 5–0 to recommend approval at its Dec. 4 meeting, and staff asked the board to introduce and waive first reading and continue the hearing to Jan. 20 for adoption consideration.
Board members and members of the public asked whether rezoning the subdivision would be a more comprehensive fix and whether the amendment would create precedent for other nonconforming parcels. Ferguson said the subdivision’s applied zoning reflects a 1985 general-plan redistricting and that many older subdivisions remain nonconforming; rezoning would raise broader general-plan questions. Supporters said the amendment is crafted to be proportional and limited in scope and could help other applicants who previously were denied for lack of a width exception.
The board voted to continue the public hearing to the Jan. 20 meeting to allow time for the technical draft, public review and final resolution language. No final adoption occurred on Jan. 13.
