Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission denies variance to split 15‑acre parcel into three 5‑acre lots
Summary
The commission voted 4–1 to follow staff recommendations and deny a variance and minor‑subdivision application that would have reduced the AG‑40 lot minimum to allow three five‑acre parcels, with staff and Farm Bureau arguing the change conflicts with the general plan and agricultural protections.
The San Joaquin County Planning Commission voted 4–1 to deny a variance and associated minor‑subdivision request to split an approximately 15‑acre parcel into three roughly five‑acre parcels in an AG‑40 zone.
Principal planner Megan Ayure presented the staff analysis and recommended denial because the proposal conflicts with the general plan and development title: the current zoning requires a 40‑acre minimum lot size and a maximum density of one residence per 20 acres. Staff concluded the project could not meet required variance and minor‑subdivision findings related to special circumstances, consistency with the general plan and site suitability.
Applicant representative Matthew Weber told commissioners the property has been functionally residential for decades, that nearby parcels are smaller and that the request was intended to keep family members close by. "We believe that given the way this has developed over the years...we believe it would match the neighborhood," Weber said.
The San Joaquin Farm Bureau provided written and oral opposition; executive director Andrew Genesi argued approving the variance would encourage further subdivision of agricultural land and undermine protections established when the AG‑40 designation was adopted. "There's a reason why it was changed from AG‑5 to AG‑40 — to prevent further subdivision and degradation of farming areas," Genesi said.
After discussion, Commissioner Rhodes moved to accept staff’s recommendation to deny the applications; the motion carried 4–1. The chair announced the appeal deadline and next steps for an appeal to the Board of Supervisors.
