County supervisors told a North County landowner Tuesday that he
can’t build a home on his 10-acre parcel until they figure out how
to manage Williamson Act properties.
San Jose – County supervisors told a North County landowner Tuesday that he can’t build a home on his 10-acre parcel until they figure out how to manage Williamson Act properties.
In putting off the man, who wants to build a house in unincorporated Saratoga, the supervisors sent a clear message: they’re not willing to do anything with the nearly 1,000 parcels that don’t meet the act’s rules, not even cancel a contract when the owner is willing to pay a $262,000 penalty.
“We’re punishing the applicant,” Supervisor Don Gage said of the two-month continuance approved by the board in a 3 to 2 vote. “We have 3,000 pieces of property in the Williamson Act and we have to get the non-compliant parcels out.”
Neil Henderson, who owns just fewer than 10 acres, is seeking to cancel his Williamson Act contract at a cost of about $262,000 so he can build a home on the property. His application was supported by planning staff but ran into opposition from a confused and divided board.
“I find us in a very awkward spot,” said Supervisor Liz Kniss, whose district includes Henderson’s property. “I don’t think this is the time to go forward.”
Supervisor Blanca Alvarado called Henderson a “victim” but approved the delay because she wants county officials to find common ground on land use issues before making decisions on individual parcels.
“Through a series of circumstances we know there are serious flaws in the way we make land use decisions,” Alvarado said. “These issues keep hitting us in the face.”
And the Williamson Act, a 1965 law that provides landowners with a significant tax break in exchange for keeping land in agricultural use or specific types of open space, has raised a multitude of problems for the county, which has a history of not properly enforcing the law.
More than two years after a state auditor ordered the county to fix its Williamson problems, officials are still grappling with the best way to do so. A task force made up of members representing agricultural, open space, and real estate interests has been meeting since March to craft new guidelines and some progress has been made.
In January, the county will begin a series of evictions for the approximately 1,000 parcels that don’t meet the act’s minimum size and land use requirements. And the county has put a moratorium on accepting new applications until it finalizes rules for managing the law.
Henderson, who currently lives in Utah, first sought permission to build a house on the land in 2002, about the same time that the California Department of Conservation ordered the county to change the way it administers the act.
Henderson’s parents entered the act in 1972, but never farmed the property. Still, in 2003, planners approved his building plans with the condition that he non-renew his contract and maintain an agricultural use on the property. Henderson non-renewed, a process that takes 10 years, but never established a farming enterprise. He can not develop the property until the contract expires, in 2012. Henderson is trying to escape the contract by paying a cancellation penalty of 12.5 percent of the land’s market value.
After the hearing, he said he is a “frustrated taxpayer” and upset that after nearly three years, the county still has not adopted policies on Williamson lands.
“My frustration is that we’ve been in these discussions for three years,” he said. “We’re trying to develop a home so we can come back.”
Supervisors Gage and Pete McHugh indicated they would have approved the cancellation Tuesday.
Henderson’s case has been rescheduled for October 18. Another pending cancellation, in east Morgan Hill, will be before the board in September.
