Laserfiche WebLink
PC : 9-17-87 <br /> MS-88-3 <br /> Basis of Appeal , Item VI : <br /> The manner that the Planning Commission notified the residents <br /> failed to note all names of property owners. <br /> Response• <br /> Mr. Jagir submitted the application as the property owner . The <br /> public notice sent to surrounding property owners did include a <br /> copy of the map which listed the property owners involved. <br /> Basis of Appeal , Item VII : <br /> "The Limitations of Homesite Parcels . . . " indicates that "a <br /> parcel may be created for the purpose of . . . " as mandate , not <br /> as a permissive as is the intent of the regulation. The <br /> Commission is not obliged to grant the split . <br /> Response- <br /> The Planning Division' s action was based on the ability to <br /> find that the proposal met all the criteria in the Code . <br /> Basis of Appeal , Item VIII : <br /> The land was purchased with the restrictions evident to the <br /> buyer. It is not the responsibility of the County or its resi- <br /> dents to correct a judgement error on the part of the buyer. <br /> Further, the realty background of Mr. Jagir makes him fully <br /> aware of such restrictions and implications of such. <br /> Response• <br /> The Planning Title allows the creation of homesite parcels for <br /> the owner-operator under certain circumstances. It was under <br /> these provisions that an application was submitted. <br /> Basis of Appeal , Item IX: <br /> This property was owned as a partnership. That partnership was <br /> not recognized when the proposal was granted. The Commission <br /> considered this proposal based on individual ownership. <br /> Response: <br /> Please note the definition of "owner-operator" under the <br /> Response to Item II . <br /> -14- <br />