Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Rights Rescission topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends rescinding development-rights agreement for Hereford parcel to allow a residence
Summary
The commission voted to recommend that the Board of Supervisors rescind a development-rights agreement on a 115.49-acre agricultural remainder parcel on Pass Road, enabling one additional residence; staff had recommended referral for denial citing AG-80 density rules.
The Sutter County Planning Commission recommended that the Board of Supervisors rescind a recorded development-rights agreement that currently prohibits new residential development on an approximately 115.49-acre agricultural remainder parcel at 9030 Pass Road.
Luis Enrique Hernandez, assistant planner, told the commission the parcel is zoned AG-SB and designated AG-80 in the general plan, which permits one primary residence per 80 acres. Hernandez said staff concluded the proposal would exceed permitted residential density and recommended the commission forward a recommendation of denial to the board based on general-plan and zoning inconsistencies.
The applicant’s consultant, Jim Whitaker, addressed the commission and said the family seeks to keep farming and to allow a son to build a residence on the parcel. Whitaker urged consideration of local farm-family needs and framed the request as preserving family agriculture rather than enabling future nonagricultural development.
Commissioners questioned parcel history and noted a 2003 tentative parcel map created a separate two-acre home-site parcel with a recorded development-rights agreement on the remainder. One commissioner (Manuel) recused themself from the vote; another commissioner expressed that the main objection was the project's inconsistency with the plan.
After discussion Commissioner Dillard moved to recommend rescission of the development-rights agreement to the Board of Supervisors. The roll call (Schmittel — No; Manuel — Abstain; De La — Yes; Campbell — Yes) resulted in the motion carrying and a recommendation to rescind the recorded agreement.
Staff told commissioners that rescinding the agreement would permit one additional residence on the agricultural remainder; any future subdivision would still need to comply with AG-80 density rules and zoning requirements.
