Search
Polls
Latest Forum Posts
| Taking a Knee unclebuck 15-11-08 13:51 |
| Re:Football unclebuck 07-10-08 15:24 |
| Re:Football unclebuck 02-10-08 12:59 |
Login Form
| Agriculture plan back for approval |
|
|
| Written by Jonathan Partridge / Patterson Irrigator / | |
| Wednesday, 05 December 2007 | |
|
At a glance
A new version of the county’s agriculture plan is back on the table after being shot down by the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors earlier this year. The county’s planning commission will vote Thursday on whether to recommend a revised version of the county general plan’s agricultural element, which has not been revised since 1992. The new version removes the controversial term, “agricultural viability,” which supervisors said was too ambiguous, and replaces it with language that opposes residential development on agricultural parcels. It also adds previously incomplete details about required agricultural buffers and setbacks and farmland mitigation requirements. Supervisors voted 3-2 on April 17 to reject a previous draft of the agricultural element. A vote to drop the ag element revisions entirely and not send them back to county staff for changes failed, 2-3. Instead of basing decisions on whether to subdivide rural parcels on their viability for agriculture, the new version clarifies that the subdivision of agricultural lands should not be used to create parcels for “residential purposes.” Ninety percent or more of the parcel must be dedicated to agriculture, or it must include a confined animal facility. The changed language still reflects the previous draft ordinance’s intent to eliminate the spread of “ranchettes,” according to a county staff report. Ranchettes are relatively small plots of agricultural land, often about 10 acres or more, that contain houses. The proposed ordinance would not allow any land to be rezoned as 3-, 5-, 10- and 20-acre parcels, also to prevent ranchette-style building. County senior planner Angela Freitas said Monday that an agricultural element subcommittee initially sought to further define “agricultural viability,” but that proved to be difficult. The group decided that the new language about residential purposes “went back to the heart of the issue,” she said. Meanwhile, new information about buffers would require nonagricultural projects next to “general agricultural”-zoned districts to have at least a 150-foot buffer. Projects that are people-intensive, such as athletic fields, would need at least a 300-foot buffer. County staff recommended that buffers include at least a 6-foot-high fence and a vegetative screen, and commissioners can decide Thursday whether they want to extend that height to 8 feet. Project developers will be responsible for creating buffers. The revised draft agricultural element also gives more details on plans to require builders to permanently protect an acre of farmland for every acre of agricultural land developed. To do this, project developers could buy conservation easements, pay an in-lieu fee or use “mitigation credit banking.” Under the latter scenario, developers who buy more acres than needed to meet the mitigation requirement could sell the excess land to other developers to help them meet the requirement. Anyone with a project that contains 20 or more acres would have to buy easements under the proposed ordinance. Supervisors would decide whether each applicant met the mitigation requirement. Antiquated subdivisions that are undeveloped but were created on paper in the early 1900s will still need a discretionary permit to place a dwelling on parcels of less than 20 acres. However, the Patterson Colony, an 18,462-acre planned area subdivided by Patterson’s town founders in 1910, remains exempt as a result of the County Zoning Ordinance approved in 2000. Thomas W. Patterson initially subdivided the colony into ranches of various sizes, mostly 5-, 10- and 20-acre parcels, according to the Patterson Township Historical Society Web site. Stanislaus County Supervisor Jim DeMartini, who helped create the proposed ordinance, said hardly anyone has commented on the revised draft. He noted that a subcommittee met twice a month for more than two years to create the final product. “There's an enormous amount of hours that went into it,” he said. Changes afoot The new draft of the agricultural element of the county’s general plan will be approved or rejected by the county planning commission. Among the key changes:
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 167 Comments
(0)
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed