The San Benito County Planning Commission debated the fairness
of the county’s subdivision ordinance, including allegations that
it may be charging applicants twice for the same project.
The San Benito County Planning Commission debated the fairness of the county’s subdivision ordinance, including allegations that it may be charging applicants twice for the same project.
Commission Chairman Joe Tonascia said he is concerned that the ordinance asks people to give them property, then makes them pay for roadway improvements.
“We are doing a taking,” said Tonascia, which immediately drew objections from County Counsel Shirley Murphy and County Planning Director Rob Mendiola. But Tonascia continued to make his point.
“That’s my personal term as a planning commissioner. I call it a taking,” he said. “I think if you’re going to take a piece of my property to make the road wider, the last thing you do is turn around and tell me that I’ve got to fix it for you.”
Murphy objected to Tonascia’s use of the term “taking.”
“Although you may feel that you’re taking people’s property, it’s not a taking under the law,” she said.
Tonascia said he has no problem making developers pay for a subdivision, but when someone breaks up a five-acre parcel from a 50-acre ranch, then the county is asking for too much, he said.
Mendiola said the county has received very little money since 1978 for road improvements and that the ordinances were put in place to make up for it.
“We do really need to build as we go. If it’s just one lot, we need to gather it one lot at a time,” he said. “If you don’t do it one lot at a time, you’re incrementally falling behind on your building.”
Tonascia said the commission will have to come up with a fair-share plan, and in light of the new growth control ordinance’s anticipated implementation he didn’t know where it would fit in.
“It will change the land-use and the zoning of that property,” he said.
Tonascia told staff that the growth control ordinance should be placed on the commission’s agenda for discussion.
“I think we need to discuss it. I feel real bad that we weren’t allowed to discuss it before the Board of Supervisors made their decision,” he said.
Tonascia said the Planning Commission needed to have some leeway in dealing with the subdivision ordinances – “So we can give a little more when we need to, curb a little less if we have to,” he said.
During the exchange, John and Trish Maderis requested to speak on the matter. It was their application in February that brought the issue to the attention of the commissioners because they understood the money put up front would come back to them if the county did not do the road improvements.
Assistant Public Works Director Arman Nazemi said the benefit area must be established first before the county can collect fees, which would be based on fair share, he said. However, another issue presented itself to the commission – the county’s newly adopted growth control ordinance, which might become law within 30 days.
“That’s going to make that benefit area less subdividable,” Tonascia said.
Maderis must dedicate to the county half of an 84-foot road right-of-way along Santa Ana Valley Road. The applicant must also make roadway improvements for that frontage road.
Commissioner Murrill Conley, who called for the workshop concerning the fairness of the ordinance, was not at the meeting. The remaining four commissioners decided changes needed to be made, but said they would come back to the issue after the county’s growth control ordinance is adopted or rescinded.
