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
| Business construction exempt from agriculture requirement |
|
|
| Written by Jonathan Partridge / Patterson Irrigator | |
| Saturday, 22 December 2007 | |
|
MODESTO — Homebuilders must preserve an acre of farmland for every acre they develop in Stanislaus County’s unincorporated areas, while those that construct buildings for businesses need not. That’s according to a last-minute addition to the new agricultural element of the county’s general plan, which the Board of Supervisors approved, 3-2, on Tuesday. County staff scrambled during a recess in the meeting to revise language in the 40-page document, after supervisors voted 3-2 to reject a previous version of the element that required mitigation for all nonfarming uses. Grover casts swing vote Supervisor Jeff Grover cast the deciding vote in both instances, stating concerns about the mitigation requirement’s impact on state tax incentive zones set up to help industry and its effect on the county’s ability to attract business. “I’m keenly aware of and concerned with our ability to provide jobs, to provide business parks …,” Grover said. He said he had heard worries Monday about the mitigation requirement from the Alliance, an economic development agency that works on behalf of Stanislaus County and its cities. The county also received several letters of protest Monday from property owners, chambers of commerce and the Building Industry Association, among others, and one of support from American Farmland Trust. An e-mail sent by state Housing and Community Development Director Lynn Jacobs particularly grabbed the attention of county staff and supervisors. Jacobs questioned whether the proposed element would allow the county to meet state affordable housing goals and whether potential related development fees were legal. She urged the county to postpone its vote 30 days to determine whether mitigation requirements would impact a state Enterprise Zone in Stanislaus County, which provides tax incentives to businesses. No plans yet Doug Sweetland, director of economic development for the Alliance, said during a break in the meeting there were no plans for business development in the unincorporated portions of the Enterprise Zone that have agricultural zoning. As a result, he did not think the element would cause problems with the tax incentive zone. County counsel Mick Krausnick said Jacobs’ Enterprise Zone question was the only issue that had not been resolved. The new element states that the board will examine the ag element’s impacts on the Enterprise Zone and the impacts of the mitigation requirements at a later time. As for mitigation requirements, it calls for project developers to buy conservation easements, pay an in-lieu fee or use “mitigation credit banking.” Under the third scenario, developers that buy more acres than needed to meet the ag mitigation requirement can sell the excess land to other developers to help them meet the requirement. Anyone with a residential project of 20 or more acres must buy easements. The board of supervisors will decide whether each applicant meets the mitigation requirement. A few building industry representatives asked for mitigation requirements to be removed, saying it would create a burden on the industry. “Housing is in a crisis state,” said Bill Zoslocki, president of the Central Valley BIA. Parcel splits affected A property owner also expressed frustration with further restrictions on parcel splits. The new ag element removes a requirement in a previously rejected draft version that stated that land zoned for agriculture must have “agricultural viability” for certain parcel splits. However, it still prevents any land from being rezoned as 3-, 5-, 10- and 20-acre parcels, aiming to prevent ranchettes, relatively small parcels of land that contain homes and are deemed agriculturally inefficient. It also limits how landowners can divide and use certain parcels of 160 acres or less. Houses may not be built on any smaller section broken out of the 160-acre parcel unless 90 percent of it is farmed with on-site irrigation or there is a “confined animal facility” such as a dairy. O'Brien, Monteith object Supervisor Bill O’Brien voted against the element because he thought it violated landowners’ property rights and would create hardships for those in his district who farm smaller parcels. Supervisor Dick Monteith also took issue with parcel split restrictions, saying horses and greenhouses could be worked on relatively small tracts of land. He said the committee that worked on the revised element exhibited “arrogance,” and he felt the element still required agricultural viability without using the exact term. Monteith also took issue with the mitigation requirements. Grover said he understood the BIA’s position, but he thought a mitigation requirement for homes was needed to keep agriculture strong in Stanislaus County in the coming years. DeMartini, who helped write the element, talked about all the work that went into the document and touted various features. For instance, it adds previously incomplete details about required agricultural buffers and setbacks. It also defines further provisions regarding state Williamson Act contracts. The Williamson Act provides tax breaks for landowners who keep their property for rural uses. In addition, the plan encourages marketing boards, supports the expansion of export and direct-marking programs, supports safe and adequate farmworker housing and maintains existing air quality, water and soil policies. Though DeMartini did not like that business developers are exempt from the mitigation requirement, he said he approved of the final draft overall. “I got about 95 percent of what I wanted,” DeMartini said. To reach Jonathan Partridge at the Irrigator, call 892-6187 or e-mail him at jonathan@patterson irrigator.com
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 233 Comments
(0)
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed