Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press commission over proposed four‑lot subdivision; hearing continued for more analysis and renotification
Summary
Residents urged the commission to deny a proposed variance and tentative map that would split an existing ~7.41‑acre parcel into four lots; commissioners continued the item to a date uncertain and directed staff to renotify neighbors and investigate groundwater, wildlife, and road safety concerns.
A contested request to divide a roughly 7.41‑acre agricultural parcel into four smaller lots prompted extensive public comment at the Tulare County Planning Commission on March 11, and the commission voted to continue the item so staff can answer neighbor questions and renotify the community.
Project planner Russell (introduced himself as Russell Kosua) described the application (zone variance PZV25‑029 and tentative parcel map PPM25‑019) to create parcels sized about 2.06, 1.77, 1.79 and 1.79 acres. He said the parcel is zoned AE40/AE20 depending on the record cited and that mandatory variance findings were assessed; staff presented water‑use estimates, right‑of‑way details, prior notices and outreach, and the county’s conclusion that the map could be consistent with county zoning if the variance findings are met.
Neighbors raised objections at the public hearing. David Wiggley, who farms nearby, said the proposal is unfair relative to how other properties were treated: "My main concern here is fairness," he told the commission, adding that he was told at purchase the land would remain AE20 and not be subdivided. Other residents cited narrow roads and a lack of pavement, concerns about potable water and the cost to deepen wells, potential impacts on protected kit foxes and other wildlife, and several instances in which they said they were not mailed notice of this hearing.
Staff and the applicant responded that digital notice was sent to those who requested it and that staff would renotify by mail and electronically; staff also said domestic wells for four lots typically do not trigger regional groundwater management rules and that earlier consultations found the roadway meets county right‑of‑way standards. The project applicant, Nate Strabble, said the partial map is intended to provide flexibility amid tightening water restrictions and that it was not an immediate plan to build houses: "Our goal with this partial map is not to develop homes or roads," he said.
Planning Director Aaron Bach recommended continuing the matter so staff could research whether the site lies in a subsidence area, check endangered‑species databases, verify water‑table trends, and provide further detail on road improvements. The commission moved to continue the application to a date uncertain, with staff instructed to renotify all neighbors and return with additional technical analysis.
What happens next: The county will renotify neighbors by paper and digital means and return the item to the commission once staff has completed additional analyses and outreach. The continuation means no permit or variance has been approved; neighbors may file appeals once a decision is made.
Sources: staff presentation and public commenters during the March 11, 2026 Tulare County Planning Commission meeting.
