October 27, 2005

Pierce Ranch residents oppose lot-line adjustment of hillside property

Pierce family wants county leaders to better define hillside-zoning ordinance

By Sheila Sanchez
Staff Writer

Pierce Ranch neighbors are opposing a request by the heirs of Tony and Mary Pierce’s estate for a lot-line adjustment involving more than 138 acres of pastoral land on a hill on the south side of McAbee Road.

The heirs, the sons of the late dairy farmers, are asking the Santa Clara County Planning Commission to forward a recommendation to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors for a zoning and general plan interpretation regarding the minimum-lot size of conforming lots for lot-line adjustment in hillside zoning districts.

The heirs’ property from the estate consists of a 24.85-acre parcel on the south side of McAbee Road and a 113-acre parcel on the north side of McAbee Road. The parcels are considered nonconforming as they’re under the160-acre minimum required for the adjustment. If the lot-line adjustment were granted, they would be reconfigured as 41 and 97.50 acres, respectively.

When a subdivision is proposed, the hillside-zoning ordinance allows development based on a so-called “20-160” slope-density formula, meaning the minimum acre per dwelling is determined based on the parcel’s average slope. For example, if the land’s average slope is 10 percent, then one dwelling unit is allowed on 20 acres. The higher the slope the bigger the acreage demanded per dwelling.

There’s a difference of opinion among county planning staff as to whether lot-line adjustments can be granted under the latter provision.

County planners concede that having one definition for conforming minimum-lot size for subdivision and a different one for lot-line adjustment creates confusion for property owners, decision-makers and the public. In all other zoning districts that utilize slope-density formulas, minimum lot size for purposes of subdivision and lot-line adjustment are the same.

During an Oct. 6 meeting before the commissioners at county headquarters in downtown San Jose, the parties involved in the land dispute came together to figure out if an interpretation on the issue would be forwarded to the supervisors, who would make the final decision on the matter. The commissioners delayed action on the item because the issue was so confusing. They will hold a workshop to resolve the disagreement among county planning staff before their Nov. 3 meeting.

According to Len Procker, a spokesman for the Pierce Ranch neighborhood group, it would take a long, narrow strip of land a few thousand feet in length along the eastern side of the larger of the two parcels to increase the size of the smaller parcel to 41 acres. The strip would extend to lands owned by Guadalupe Rubbish Disposal Company Inc., and jump over the Quicksilver County Park road access.

County planning staff has already told the Pierce brothers that the adjustment could not be approved because it would not conform to applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance, based on lot-size requirements.

Pierce Ranch neighbors have presented the commissioners more than 80 signatures gathered in two days opposing the lot-line adjustment.

In an Oct. 4 letter sent to the commission, Procker states that the Pierce brothers are executing a “paper manipulation” to achieve a 41-acre parcel to apply the 20-160 slope density formula and “skirt county zoning regulations.”

“Further still, we see the lands to be joined are just that: joined. They are not really contiguous in the sense that it is a continuation of the original 24-acre parcel in location, shape, slope, etc. Therefore, a 20-160-slope formula should not apply,” Procker wrote.

“Hillsides are important to the residents of the county. These hillsides are important to us. They are, in their own way, enriching. In its wisdom, the county has restricted development though zoning. We ask that the zoning restrictions remain for the hillsides in question and that the planning commission deny the lot-line adjustment requested,” Procker added. “The whole neighborhood is up in arms over this because we don’t want to see the land developed,” he said.

Norman Matteoni, the attorney representing the Pierce brothers, said his clients are seeking property reconfiguration for estate distribution of assets to two separate parties. He said the 40-acre parcel would go to Joe Pierce. The other parcel would remain with Tony Pierce.

Matteoni also wants to save his clients some money. The fee for a two-lot lot-line adjustment is $1,833 compared to the fees for a subdivision and environmental assessment which would be close to $10,000.

The lawyer told commissioners that the land distribution would simply give Joe Pierce his part of the land and that the other parcel will go with the larger lot, which has a winery building and a dwelling under construction.

The Pierce brothers are a mystery to the majority of the residents in the neighborhood. Many say they’ve never met them or have had any interaction with them. Others speculate whether they live in the area and how much they’re worth, given the amount of property that they’ve sold to developers to build homes. The Blackwell subdivision built in the early 1980s belonged to the Pierces and the new SummerHill Homes development property also belonged to them.

Sharon Potter, a Pierce Ranch resident and member of the neighborhood group, asked the commissioners: “Do you want to please an entire neighborhood or do you want to please one family?”

The obviously irate woman told commissioners that the Pierce family has never done anything for the neighborhood. “All they’ve done is build more and make more money for themselves. If you find that one wealthy family’s interest is more important than an entire neighborhood then go ahead and approve the lot-line adjustment,” she said.

Dennis Reeder, another Pierce Ranch neighbor who lives adjacent to the small parcel, said the hill is a beautiful meadow whose grade has not been examined and which contains many wild animals.

“The bottom line is that they want to switch from a small parcel to a large parcel to get the 41 acres so they can do a little cluster and bring more traffic into our area,” Reeder said. “This is a smokescreen. If you change the rules you’ve had all along and decide to go in this direction, it’s a matter of time before we have more and more development.”

Bill Shoe, the county’s principal planner, assured Pierce Ranch residents that an interpretation would not mean the Pierce heirs could build housing on the land and that they would have to file building applications which would have to be approved or rejected by county supervisors.

To date, he said, neither lot is an approved building site. He also said there could be issues regarding access improvements or other factors that would not permit a home to be built except on certain locations of each lot.

Shoe said the county staff does not support an interpretation of the zoning ordinance that “blurs the significant distinctions between subdivision and lot-line adjustments as being equivalent to subdivisions. An interpretation that literally equates the two in terms of their purposes, intent, or outcomes would be inappropriate and contrary to both state and county zoning ordinance regulations.”