Fresno County supervisors approve variance to split a 5.09‑acre Willow Bluff parcel despite staff recommendation

Fresno County supervisors voted unanimously March 3 to grant a variance that will allow a landowner to split an existing roughly 5.09‑acre parcel in the Willow Bluff area into two about 2.55‑acre parcels, overturning a prior denial from the county planning commission.

The public hearing centered on whether the four findings required for a variance could be made. Tawanda Matunga of Public Works and Planning summarized staff’s conclusion that the planning commission could not reach the necessary findings at its August 2025 hearing. Appellant counsel Austin Ewell, representing the landowner, told supervisors the application was filed before the county’s 2024 general‑plan redesignation and presented a hydrogeology study the applicant says shows reliable water availability. “We do think finding number 1 can be made,” Ewell said, adding the split was intended to keep the land in the family and to allow a home for the applicant’s mother and children.

Opponents, including Radley Reap, urged the board to follow staff’s analysis and the 2024 general‑plan direction. “Your staff are experts in land use planning,” Reap said, arguing that the staff report and land‑use policy LU E‑24 support denial. Several supervisors acknowledged those concerns but said the timing of the application—filed before the 2024 plan change—and the facts on the ground (including prior nearby variances) weighed in favor of approval. One supervisor pointed to the hydrological evidence and the parcel’s topography near the river as supporting water reliability.

Supervisor Magsig moved to approve the variance based on the findings presented on the record; a colleague seconded. The motion included the CEQA determination and the indemnification requirement recommended by staff. The board voted aye on the motion and the variance was approved unanimously.

Why it matters: The decision allows a land split that will create smaller residential parcels in an area the county redesigned in 2024 to generally favor a 5‑acre minimum. Opponents said approving the variance risks undercutting the recently adopted general plan; backers said the application predates that change and that the site’s circumstances (topography and the submitted hydrogeology study) justify the exception.

What’s next: Staff will follow the conditions of approval, including mapping procedures and any indemnification obligations; the project will proceed to the required mapping stage if the applicant satisfies conditions set by the board.

Quotes (selected): “We do think finding number 1 can be made,” said Austin Ewell, the appellant’s counsel, referencing site conditions and the applicant’s water study. “Your staff are experts in land use planning,” said Radley Reap, who urged the board to uphold staff and the commission’s denial.

Provenance: Topic introduced SEG 448; discussion and testimony across SEG 488–SEG 1000; motion and vote recorded SEG 1001–SEG 1026.