My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SU0012756
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
M
>
METTLER
>
2061
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
MS-88-3
>
SU0012756
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/6/2020 12:49:09 PM
Creation date
2/6/2020 11:42:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
RECORD_ID
SU0012756
PE
2622
FACILITY_NAME
MS-88-3
STREET_NUMBER
2061
Direction
E
STREET_NAME
METTLER
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
LODI
Zip
95240-
APN
05906037
ENTERED_DATE
1/2/2020 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
2061 E METTLER RD
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
005
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\gmartinez
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
PC : 9-17-87 <br /> MS-88-3 <br /> purchaser of Parcel B can also request a one-acre Variance , <br /> creating yet another subdivision, and (3 ) the large parcel can <br /> continue to be transferred with subsequent purchasers each <br /> obtaining a one-acre Variance . <br /> Response : <br /> The letter sent on August 13 , 1987 , was to formally advise Mr . <br /> Jagir of the staff ' s action and to emphasize the reason the <br /> project was able to be approved. Copies of that letter were <br /> sent to all responding property owners (see attached) . It is <br /> correct that , if approved, the larger parcel could subsequently <br /> be sold, thus allowing it to be developed. There is no Parcel <br /> 3 , as referenced by the appellant. A subsequent proposal to <br /> further divide would be subject to public notice and to all <br /> provisions of the Code . <br /> Basis of Appeal , Item IV: <br /> No public hearing was held by the Planning Department before <br /> granting the Variance even though opposition had been duly <br /> filed. <br /> Response: <br /> The project was not a Variance but , rather, a Minor <br /> Subdivision, and it was processed under the Staff Review With <br /> Public Notice provisions of the Code. Under these provisions , <br /> no public hearing is held unless the project is appealed within <br /> 10 days of final action or unless the matter is referred by <br /> staff. Staff did receive written and verbal evidence because <br /> of the notice, and this evidence was considered in the staff ' s <br /> decision. <br /> Basis of Appeal , Item V: <br /> In making the decision to grant the two-acre split , the <br /> Commission 'gave consideration based on issues that were not in <br /> the Commission ' s realm; that issue was Mr. Jagir ' s desire to <br /> obtain financing without encumbering his "farming operation. " <br /> Ones ability to finance is not the concern that the Micke Grove <br /> Plan addresses to protect this area. To consider petitioner 's <br /> finances places the Commission in the role of financeer, not <br /> overseers of land use. <br /> Response: <br /> The predominant reason to create a I%- to 3-acre parcel is to <br /> obtain financing on the homesite parcel instead of encumbering <br /> the total agricultural holding. <br /> -13- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.