Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the General Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission denies Papanos rezoning, asks staff to pursue broader mining‑to‑recreation options
Summary
The Planning Commission recommended denial of Bill Papanos’s application to rezone a Highway 70 parcel from mining to recreation, adopting findings of inconsistency with the general plan and extracting a separate resolution of intention for broader options such as campground allowances or multi‑parcel general plan amendments.
The Plumas County Planning Commission on March 19 voted to deny a proposed general plan amendment and rezoning application by Bill Papanos for a parcel at 2415 Highway 70 in Twain, concluding the application was inconsistent with existing general plan policies and directing staff to pursue separate options for broader consideration.
Staff explained that because the application as submitted conflicted with multiple general plan elements — including conservation and open‑space policies — staff recommended denial. "Because this application does not conform to general plan policies, staff is recommending denial," the planning staff told commissioners while walking through the resolution and the record.
Staff presented three alternative options for the commission and the Board of Supervisors to consider going forward: a multi‑parcel general plan and zone change along the corridor; adding campground use to the mining zone subject to a special use permit (discretionary review); or adding broader recreational uses to the mining zone subject to conditions. Staff also reported the applicant had engaged an engineer to evaluate septic/leach feasibility for a potential campground and that preliminary due diligence had been performed.
Commissioners agreed to split the staff’s resolution. They moved (mover identified in the record as Commissioner Montgomery, seconded by Commissioner Spencer) to adopt the resolution denying the Papanos application with findings of inconsistency (clauses A and B) and to extract clause C — staff direction to explore broader mining‑to‑recreation/campground options — into a separate resolution of intention that the commission would review before it goes to the Board of Supervisors. A roll call was taken; the transcript excerpt records the motion and roll call but does not provide a full vote tally in the excerpt.
Why it matters: The action preserves staff findings that the specific rezoning application does not meet existing general plan standards while opening an administrative path for county staff and commissioners to develop code amendments or multi‑parcel general plan considerations that could allow campgrounds or other recreational uses subject to discretionary review and environmental review.
Next steps: Staff will prepare the resolution of intention for clause C and return it to the commission for review; the denial with findings will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
