The contention and fist pounding over the Cathey’s Valley Community Plan (CVCP) are part of an age-old horn-locking between developers and planning officials.

The CVCP was developed over 15 years through over 80 public meetings measuring what residents in that specific area of the county want to preserve and restrict in compliance with the Revised General Plan of 2006.

The Cathey’s Valley Planning Advisory Committee molded that data and those dreams into the framework of the CVCP based on what residents expressed.

The majority of residents in Cathey’s Valley don’t want to see development that would infringe on their rural lifestyle, and they

don’t wish their open-space environment spoiled.

That’s a problem for developers like Steve Fortner and Theresa Castaldi, among others, and their legal teams. Restrictions on development and parcel size that are outlined in the CVCP don’t accommodate their plans. Increasing allowable parcel sizes decreases profits, and reduces the real estate inventory causing concern for a number of agents in that industry.

Since developers understand that objections on their part to restrictions in the plan that fly in the face of the majority of land owners won’t be viewed favorably by the residents who developed the plan or the planners themselves, they have embraced a different tactic. It really isn’t new or original, but it can certainly ramp up the rancor among property owners.

Developers can use misinformation, twisted interpretations, and innuendo to foster fear, apprehension and confusion within the core of the community to use property owners as a battering ram to hammer the plan’s contents.

The recently mailed letter that was described in this venue last week is an example of that effort. It was signed by six Cathey’s Valley residents, all probably operating with good intentions of alerting their neighbors of potentially impending property right infringement.

However, those residents didn’t draft the letter. It was created by the legal staff of the Fortner Family Trust, and crafted to accomplish its goal of igniting apprehension. Each of the items alleged in the letter can be disspelled. Residents might be better served to contact the County’s planning department for explanations before relying on the perception of their neighbors and attorneys representing developers.

The Mariposa County Planning Department issued an explanation document in its Web site earlier this week, addressing a number of issues that were raised at a recent meeting in Cathey’s Valley.

The first claim in the letter states that “you can’t add on to homes, business or other structures if your parcel doesn’t meet the minimum parcel size.” That isn’t true.

The confusion comes in the misunderstanding of the plans reference to “non-conforming.” Simply put, “non-conforming” is another way to describe “grandfathered” parcels and structures. A non-conforming parcel is a parcel which was created “legally,” before a landuse or zoning classification established a minimum parcel size for subdivision.

There are no written restrictions in the CVCP in reference to additions on structures. In fact, state law dictates that Mariposa County allow a second dwelling on a legally-established parcel.

The second claim states that a resident’s ability to get bank fi- nancing could be eliminated or seriously hampered. Yosemite Bank Branch Manager Matt Foraker says his firm would look at each application based on its own merits. Rob Thorson, the chief financial officer for WestAmerica Bank, said, “As long as the property as built and was going to be built in accordance with zoning and applicable ordinances, the ‘non-conforming’ aspect wouldn’t pose any barriers to a loan application.”

The third statement in the letter claims that if a parcel size doesn’t meet the minimum a person might not be able to build anything at all. That isn’t true under the revised General Plan, or state law.

The letter also claims that property values could be reduced, but Mariposa County Assessor/Recorder, Becky Crafts, said, “The market has to dictate that. We don’t see a lot of value change on non-conforming stuff.”

Brett Baumann, the owner and broker for Cathey’s Valley Real Estate and Mariposa Homes and Land believes that if a property can’t get financing, for any reason, it can signifi- cantly reduce the property value. However, the CVCP doesn’t directly effect property value, the real estate market does.

Another claim in the letter is that if property sits unoccupied for any period of time, the owner may lose its use altogether. But Planning Director Kris Schenk said, “I can’t imagine any non-conforming use that we wouldn’t want to continue. As far as I know, that hasn’t ever happened.”

One of the problems several Cathey’s Valley residents cite with the CVCP is a lack of clarity.

Cathey’s Valley Planning Advisory Committee Chairman Jim Eppler agrees. “The reason for the lack of clarity in the plan is that it is purely a collection of policies and guidelines that were developed through years of meeting and surveys. It’s not a law.”

The planning department document backs up that statement. The document reads, “The Cathey’s Valley Community plan is a ‘policy’ document and now ‘law.’ The zoning document must be clearly written, should not be ‘open to interpretation,’ and it will reflect te Cathey’s Valley Community Plan policies. Mariposa planning and the planning consultant are working to prepare a draft of the Cathey’s Valley zoning text, so that it will become crystal clear how the policy document will be implemented by zoning.”

This is the second in a series of three articles examining the Cathey’s Valley Community Plan. In the third portion, more details on the application of AB 32 will be explored.