Village News - Also serving the communities of De Luz, Rainbow, Camp Pendleton, Pala and Pauma

West Lilac Farms proposal returned to Bonsall Sponsor Group


Last updated 9/13/2007 at Noon

The county’s Planning Commission heard debate August 24 on a tentative map for the West Lilac Farms proposed development but deemed information to the Bonsall community inadequate and sent the proposal back to the Bonsall Sponsor Group rather than approving or denying the tentative map.

“We’re going to actually get a chance to see the project,” said Bonsall Sponsor Group chair Margarette Morgan. “This is a benefit for us. We really would like to see what the plan is supposed to look like.”

The project would be located west of Aqueduct Road between Via Ararat Drive and Lilac Road. An orchard now stands on the 93.2-acre site with A70 agricultural zoning.

Property owner James D. Pardee Jr. has proposed to subdivide the property into 28 single-family residential lots which would range from between two and four acres. The intensive agriculture (19) land use designation permits parcels of two, four, and eight acres.

Two-acre parcel sizes are allowed when at least 80 percent of the land does not exceed 25 percent slope, the land is planted or has been planted for at least the previous year in at least one crop which would be commercially viable on two acres, a continuing supply of irrigation water is available, the land has access to a publicly-maintained road without a significant amount of grading, and two-acre parcels will not have a significant adverse environmental impact which cannot be mitigated.

Most of the 93.2 acres have citrus and avocado crops which can be profitable on a two-acre parcel, and none of the parcels have average slopes which exceed 25 percent. The zoning would allow for up to 41 units on the site.

In November 2001 the Bonsall Sponsor Group expressed concern about the adequacy of Mt. Ararat Way and Lilac Road to serve the development and about the contrast between the proposed regimented pad placement and the community character of random pad placement, and in January 2002 the sponsor group voted 4-0 to disapprove the project due to an excess of unanswered questions.

The project returned to the sponsor group in October 2002, and a 5-1 vote to recommend a continuance due to insufficient information cited lack of a biological report and vegetation map and a lack of leach field layout in the submitted plans along with the questions about pad placement and road infrastructure.

The sponsor group cited road safety issues and unanswered drainage questions in a 7-0 motion in June 2004 to recommend denial of the project, and in March 2005 a 5-0 vote to recommend denial referenced road and drainage issues.

“Every one of the motion sheets indicated this lack of information,” Morgan said. “All four of our motion sheets stated the same thing.”

Morgan expressed Bonsall’s concerns at the Planning Commission hearing. “They had not given all the documents to the sponsor group,” she said.

The Planning Commission felt that the sponsor group’s questions should be answered before the matter returned for another hearing. “We’ll look forward to having a good, productive meeting,” Morgan said.


Reader Comments(0)


Our Family of Publications Includes:

Powered by ROAR Online Publication Software from Lions Light Corporation
© Copyright 2021