Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezone topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plumas supervisors deny Papanos general plan amendment, direct staff to explore special‑use and code amendment pathways
Summary
After a Planning Department recommendation to deny a proposal to change a 4.27‑acre parcel near Twain from mining to resort/recreation, the board voted unanimously to deny the Papanos general plan amendment and asked planning staff to return with a 'resolution of intention' to explore alternate paths such as special use permits or code amendments.
The Plumas County Board of Supervisors voted on May 5 to deny a proposed general plan amendment and rezone for a 4.27‑acre parcel on Highway 70 near Twain that the applicant proposed to convert from mining resource to resort/recreation use for a campground and associated facilities.
Planning Director Tracy Ferguson told the board the staff and the planning commission reviewed the project and found it inconsistent with multiple policies in the county’s 2035 General Plan. Ferguson said 7 of 13 applicable policies were inconsistent, citing potential encroachment on mineral resource lands, noise compatibility concerns, ingress/egress conflict with Highway 70 and potential environmental health obstacles for on‑site sewage adjacent to the Feather River.
The applicant, Bill Papanos, told the board he had invested in engineering and percolation testing and argued the campground would bring economic activity. Multiple public commenters also spoke: several applauded the applicant’s investment and potential economic benefits, while neighbors raised concerns about mining‑zone policy, water/sewer viability, property values and precedent for other parcels along the river.
The planning commission had earlier been sympathetic and considered alternative findings; ultimately it recommended denial and adopted Resolution PC‑2026‑01. County counsel and staff noted that findings of inconsistency can be challenged and advised careful findings if the board chose to overturn the staff recommendation.
After public comment and discussion, Supervisor (speaker 17) moved to deny the general plan amendment; the motion passed on a roll‑call vote with supervisors present voting yes. The board directed staff to prepare a resolution of intention for the planning commission to examine code amendments or special‑use permit options that could allow campground or recreation‑support uses under constrained conditions, and to bring that option back for board direction. Staff estimated code amendment or study could take six months to a year depending on priorities and workload.
Why it matters: the denial preserves mining resource land‑use protections in that area and avoids granting an immediate land‑use change that staff and planning commission found inconsistent with multiple general plan policies. The planning department and planning commission will explore whether a path through a special‑use permit or a code amendment could accommodate compatible recreation uses while protecting mineral resource policy objectives.
What’s next: planning staff will prepare a resolution of intention to the planning commission and county counsel for review; any code amendment or special‑use approach will require public workshops, additional findings and potentially another public hearing before the board.
