[the_ad_placement id=”banner-right-placement”]

[the_ad_placement id=”banner-left-placement”]

Zoning Administration approves requests on parcels in Quincy area

Some conditions must be met

Two Quincy-area requests for parcel changes for residential use were approved by Plumas County Zoning Administrator Tracey Ferguson on March 19.The first proposal, represented by Daniel Bastian Engineering for Mouser Brothers Enterprises, requested a developed parcel division on Summerfield Lane. Duplexes already exist on the current lot, which is zoned M-R for Multiple-Family Residential.

The second proposal from Realtor Randy Barlow was to divide 13.87 acres into three parcels. This parcel is off Bucks Lake Road. Some structures and historically significant features involved in decisions.

Summerfield parcels

With assistance from Bastian, Mouser Brothers requested that a single, completely developed parcel be divided into two parcels.

The lot is 18,368 square feet or 0.42 acres. One parcel would be 7,072 or 0.16 acres, and the second is 11,296 square feet or 0.26 acres.

Assistant Planner Tim Evans handled this proposal before the zoning administration.

According to Evans, Plumas County Public Works Director Bob Perreault was concerned about a fence on one of the parcels that was over the property line.

Ferguson explained that Jim Graham, a senior environmental planner for Public Works explained that two items needed to be mitigated.

One solution is to remove the encroachment or get a permit. In the past, Graham said that Perreault has allowed the permit if county property is involved. And the fence is encroaching on county property.

Looking at the code, Graham said he thought Perreault was being liberal with his approach to these kinds of issues. When the situation involves non county property, then an encroachment permit has been issued. However, it’s Public Works position on the Mouser duplex that a fence is encroaching on county property and that it must be rectified.

If the encroachment permit approach didn’t meet with planning and zoning code, then Public Works recommended that the fence be removed or a lot line adjustment or other solution be found.

Graham said that in the case of the fence it wasn’t a matter of a simple lot line adjustment. In this situation it would mean relinquishing county-owned property. To do that it would first need to be declared as surplus property and appraisals would be required.

Assistant Planner Becky Herrin said that there were several properties that were in the same boat, which could set a precedent.

Ferguson said that the real issue is where the current fence was positioned. Zoning code clearly requires that fences be built on the owner’s property. Since the fence is on county property it doesn’t meet with encroachment permit requirements. “So that’s where the rub is with us,” she explained.

Ferguson said that she would be comfortable adding language to one of the conditions stating that the fence be moved or eliminated.

After further discussion with Bastian, Ferguson said she was hoping to resolve the issue that day. She added that the property didn’t have to have a fence, so it could be removed to satisfy the requirement.

In another condition, there was a request for a civil engineer to examine an existing drainage plan. Bastian requested clarification on what that meant.

It alluded to a situation where a county engineer had reviewed the drainage plan, but Graham said he couldn’t find documentation in the file on what that meant.

Evans also pointed out that the duplex is in a flood hazard area and that FEMA requirements for flooding needed to be met. Within the document presented to zoning, the FEMA hazard flood issue was addressed. The Zone AE Special Flood Hazard Area is updated on the FEMA maps in 2005 and that satisfies the code.

Ferguson asked Evans that in reviewing the parcel maps for the main areas and side yards, that by creating two parcels would the county’s requirements be met? Evans indicated that they would.

Bucks Lake parcels

Barlow was requesting the division of 13.87 acres into three parcels. Those parcels would be split into two 3.3-acres and a 7.2-acre lot for rural residential use.

The zoning is S-3 for 3-10 acre density. A portion of the property is within the boundaries of the American Valley Scenic area and is zoned SP-ScA for special plan scenic area.

Two of the parcels Barlow now owns have some existing structures including barns and sheds. One of the parcels has two residential dwellings, and a garage.

All three parcels are to have individual wells and onsite wastewater disposal systems. These meet the approval of Plumas County Environmental Health, according to Barlow.

The parcels are also within the Quincy Fire Department’s Protection District.

Herrin handled this request for the zoning administration and the planning department.

The proposal was also submitted to the State Clearinghouse for a negative declaration.

Herrin pointed out that this development has to meet the new building codes requiring fire sprinkler systems. These are required for residential construction within high and very high fire hazard severity zones.

According to Barlow’s information, the parcels are near to an existing planning area, in a designed expansion area, and are served by a county road. It is also within the Plumas Health Care District and is served by emergency medical response.

About one-third of one of the parcels is located within Zone 6, which is the Airport Land Use compatibility Plan for Quincy-Gansner Field. There are no conflicts with this zoning, because it allows for residential uses.

In looking at CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) compliance, it has received a mitigated negative declaration, meaning there is no significant impact on the environment.

There are mitigated measures according to a Heritage resource Survey for the tentative parcel map that Barlow prepared. This is a 14-acre survey done in July 2019.

The first mitigation measure involves precautions that must be in place should cultural resources including artifacts of arrowheads, stone tools, cans or glass, structural remains or human skeletal remains and other sensitive items be discovered on the site.

Should this occur, Herrin said that work must stop until a professional archaeologist evaluates the finds. If human remains are discovered, state law requires that the county coroner should be notified to determine if the artifacts are of archaeological significance.

The Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento must also be notified immediately. This commission participates in order to determine the disposition of the remains.

In another measure concerning site protection, it is recommended that particular structures within the development should be protected.

As identified in the Heritage Resource Survey, the structure known as the red hay barn must be protected from demolition, destruction, adverse alteration or relocation, according to Diane McCombs of McCombs Archaeology.

A second structure known as the stock barn with the painted flag is to receive the same protections as outlined for the red hay barn.

There is also a portion of a mining ditch where building or grade is not allowed.

Barlow also had a botanical field reconnaissance report done for any rare plants and noxious weeds on the parcels. No mitigations were identified.

The consulting biologist  provided recommendation on the treatment of noxious weeds.


Individual public hearings were held during the meeting for each proposal. Evan Hasse from the Plumas County Engineering Department requested that one of the findings for  the Barlow property be reworded concerning access to the property. He said the county is not accepting any new roads to be maintained and the current wording appeared to indicate otherwise.

Ferguson approved both requests with specific conditions.

[the_ad_placement id=”banner-left-placement”]