Editor’s Note: A previous version of this article misstated the size of current and proposed minimum lot sizes required for subdivision of agricultural land. Lea este artículo en español aquí.
As part of an effort to stop the practice of subdividing agricultural land into small lots, the San Benito County Board of Supervisors is set to weigh a sweeping change to agricultural land use by significantly increasing the minimum lot sizes required to subdivide rural properties.
Right now, parcels zoned Agricultural Rangeland and used for grazing can be split if they are 80 or more acres and create a minimum lot size of 40 acres, while Agricultural Productive land meant for farming and related uses has a five-acre minimum lot size. Rural zoning intended for very low density housing also allows subdivision at a minimum lot size of five acres, while the Rural Transitional category, intended as a buffer between farmland and residential development, permits subdividing at a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres.
Under the new proposal, those thresholds would increase. Agricultural Rangeland owners would need at least 320 acres to subdivide and minimum lot sizes of 160 acres, and Agricultural Productive owners would need at least 80 acres to do so with minimum lot sizes of 40 acres. Rural zoning would remain the same, while Rural Transitional would increase to a minimum lot size of five acres.
First introduced by county staff at the April 15 Ag Element meeting, the proposal is part of the county’s effort to update its long-term agricultural policies.
At that meeting, county Principal Planner Arielle Goodspeed said the goal was to “stop breaking up parcels into five-acre parcels around the county.”
The proposal has sparked mixed reactions.
After receiving limited public comment at the Ag Element meeting, the county reached out via email to stakeholders and community members involved in the process. Goodspeed told the Planning Commission on May 21 that she had received about 10 responses.
“The feedback we’ve received thus far actually varied depending on who had responded, and it was similar to what we received at that meeting,” she said. “Some felt that the minimum acreage should increase to preserve ag land. Some felt that it should not increase. And some felt that if it was to increase, that it should only be in certain areas where commercial agriculture is taking place.”
At first, county staff proposed increasing the minimum lot size of Agricultural Productive areas from five to 20 acres. But after reviewing zoning rules from other agricultural counties in California, planning commissioners unanimously agreed on a more aggressive jump to 40 acres.
“Forty years ago we decided to sell our souls in the name of profit and commissions, and that’s why we are the No. 1 fastest-growing county,” Commissioner Robert Gibson said. “Now we’re at the point where services and infrastructure are failing and if we continue down that path, I just don’t see how we’re going to survive it. We’re at a breaking point. Our roads are collapsing. It’s time to do something.”
The Opposition
Not everyone agrees with the Planning Commission’s perspective. Michael Brigantino, a local real estate broker, has warned that the proposed changes could have a major impact on land values throughout the county.
“This is going to devalue property across the county,” Brigantino told BenitoLink. “A lot of the value is tied to these zoning rules and regulations that have been in place for many years.”
Brigantino said that landowners often use their property as a “financial tool” for loans, business investment or inheritance planning. Changing subdivision limits, he said, would weaken that and reduce “an owner’s borrowing power.”
“Under this new proposal, people would not be able to split it at all,” he said. “So that value that they paid, which was, for example, over $1 million, if they try to resell it with these new rules, they’re not going to sell it for what they paid for it. It’s going to be maybe $650,00 to $700,000.”
Brigantino also criticized the county for moving ahead without fully studying the economic consequences.
“There’s no documentation on how it’s going to affect property values, how it’s going to affect property taxes,” he said. “There’s a lot of loose ends here that need to get talked about or at least studied before they make such a big change.”
At the May 21 Planning Commission meeting, Vince Brigantino, president of True Leaf Farms, said the change will also affect farmers.
“We’re subject to supply and demand swings,” he said. “There are low-demand times when we can’t sell our produce and we have to leave it behind. Mother Nature can throw you curveballs that knock your yields down. You need to utilize every tool possible to make it through those rough patches. Liquidity is extremely important. Just in the last five years, we have had to sell property to get through an extensive rough patch. Any zoning restrictions that will reduce property values hurt the ability to finance operations.”
Jason Noble, president of the San Benito County Association of Realtors, said the proposal could affect landowners’ plans to subdivide their property in order to leave it to their sons or daughters. He also criticized how these changes will affect the county’s finances.
“Why,” he asked, “in this time where the county is not in the strongest financial position to do its own job to maintain our roadways, does it seem prudent to dramatically restrict what few opportunities exist for even the smallest of infrastructure improvements to be made at the cost of the minor subdivision landowner?”
The Board of Supervisors is expected to take up the proposal at its June 10 meeting.
We need your help. Support local, nonprofit news! BenitoLink is a nonprofit news website that reports on San Benito County. Our team is committed to this community and providing essential, accurate information to our fellow residents. It is expensive to produce local news and community support is what keeps the news flowing. Please consider supporting BenitoLink, San Benito County’s public service, nonprofit news.