It takes a zoning laws genius to follow any sort of battle over land-use regulations, but the fight that came before Santa Barbara County Supervisors in March was especially confusing and came with a history that dated back to the 1880s.
The question was whether a couple should be allowed to live in an old farmhouse on their 20-acre parcel in Los Olivos.
In March, the board voted 3-2—with North County supervisors Peter Adam and Steve Lavagnino dissenting—for the Groves to vacate the farmhouse within four years. As it turns out, that decision wasn’t final, and the matter had to come before the board again. A couple of weeks later, on April 1, the board heard the matter again, and voted 2-2, meaning no action would be taken: The couple can continue living in the farmhouse.
Adam recused himself from the April 1 hearing because he’d written some editorials on the matter, biasing himself between hearings. First District Supervisor Salud Carbajal changed his mind since the March hearing, citing insufficient evidence to support kicking the Groves out of their farmhouse.
The farmhouse has been used for a variety of purposes over the last 40 years, and its owners and zoning regulations have changed. It’s been used as a residence for ranch employees, as a guesthouse, as an office, and for storage.
Now, the Groves are using the farmhouse as their primary residence, and, according to neighbors, the three other buildings on the property contain tenants, which neighbors say isn’t legal use of the land or the farmhouse. Kelly Rose, who lives adjacent to the Groves, brought a petition against using the farmhouse as a primary residence before the board for the third time on April 1.
“I’m not asking that the board kick the Groves out of their house, I’m merely asking that the board require the Groves to get a permit to make their use of the farmhouse legal,” Kelly said at the hearing. “I assure you that I’m not doing this for some personal vendetta. … I started this because I became convinced that the administration of non-conforming use is broken.”
Non-conforming use is essentially using land or a building for a purpose other than what zoning and land-use regulations say it’s for.
At that hearing, Lavagnino said the supervisors’ vote wouldn’t matter, because the neighborhood would remain divided.
“The sad thing about this is no matter how we vote on this, it’s not going to help your fractured neighborhood,” Lavagnino said.
This article appears in Apr 24 – May 1, 2014.