Laserfiche WebLink
4M DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION lit <br /> 15720 Simoni Drive �° �_ ? i) 1992 ` <br /> San Jose, CA 95127 <br /> (408) 259-6025 <br /> 01 �tp_l�u.", .•. <br /> July 7 , 1992 <br /> San Joaquin County Community Development Department <br /> 1810 E. Hazelton Ave. <br /> Stockton, CA 95205 <br /> RE: Variance Application No. 'VR-92-6, Public Hearing July 16. <br /> I am writing to you as President of 4 M Development Corporation <br /> in total dismay with the inconsistency in San Joaquin County <br /> Government. <br /> I received notification regarding above variance application to <br /> reduce the minimum parcel size to 30 acres. The subject 30 acre <br /> parcel is owned by 4M Development Corporation and identified as <br /> Assessors Parcel 019-150-09-3 . I my recent conversation with San <br /> Joaquin Planning Department I have been informed that my parcel, <br /> although I have a a Grant Deed insured by Founders Title Co. , a <br /> separate tax bill since ownership in 1989, a separate street <br /> address, and a land contract with California Land Conservation, <br /> is not a legal parcel, but part of Mr. Norgaard's 70 acre parcel. <br /> The Planning Department has informed me that a "merger" of the <br /> the two parcels took place several years back and is therefore <br /> recognized as a single 70 acre parcel. <br /> I have just contacted the Assessors Office who informed me that <br /> Parcel number 019-150-09-3 is in fact a legal parcel. I have <br /> also contacted California Land Conservation who informed me that , <br /> no merger of two parcels may take effect according to the land <br /> contract by the fact that the 40-acre parcel does not have a <br /> contract with California Land Conservation. <br /> I am sure you can understand my frustration with this issue. If <br /> 4M Development was issued title to a parcel which does not exist, <br /> I can deal with the Title Company, but if I cannot get a <br /> consistent answer from San Joaquin Co. government I am at a total <br /> loss. <br /> It is not clear to me what motivate the Planning Department to <br /> fight this matter with such force. If a variance is required to <br /> make these parcels consistent with the records of other <br /> government agencies, I suggest such a variance be approved by the <br /> Planning Commission. After all, such a variance would not be <br /> inconsistent for the area since the parcel bordering subject 30 <br /> acre parcel consists of only 35 acres in a 40-acre zone. <br /> Your support in this matter is much appreciated. <br /> Hans Morkner, 4M Development Corporation <br />