SU0000232 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PC : 5-5-68 MS-88-85 STAFF ANALYSIS BACKGROUND AND PROPERTY HISTORY: This proposal was determined to be complete on March 3 , 1988 . After reviewing the history of earlier land division activity undertaken by the applicant , Norman Adams , it was determined that a Major Subdivision application would need to be processed. This proposal creates a fifth parcel and is in conflict with the State Map Act , which restricts a property owner (s) to creating a total of four adjacent parcels. On April 5 , 1986 , the Planning Division informed Mr . Adams that he could not further subdivide this property under the Minor Subdivision provisions . On April 11 , 1988 , an appeal was filed by Viola Adams, wife of the appli- cant . The determination that a Major Subdivision application should be required was based on the following history (refer to the attached exhibits which illustrate the successive divisions) : On March 9, 1972 , Mr . Norman Adams had Survey #22-65 recorded, which split a 20-acre parcel , with a + 50-acre remainder . At this time, no division of land application was required when all parcels were at least 20 acres in size. In 1978, Mr. Adams applied for a division of land (PM-78-230) to split the + 50-acre parcel into two parcels of 20 acres and 30 acres. This proposal was denied by staff as being incon- sistent with the General Plan. This decision was overturned by the Planning Commission on July 20, 1978 . In the minutes of the hearing, Mr. Adams stated that the 30-acre parcel would be joined with the family farming operation called Tetra Diamond. In 1984 , Mr. Adams was granted approval to create a three-acre homesite parcel with a + 157-acre remainder on property adja- cent to the two earlier divisions under application PM-84-80. In March 1988 , Mr. Adams applied to divide the 30-acre parcel created by PM-78-230 into a 10-acre parcel and a 20-acre par- cel . BASIS FOR APPEAL: The appellant , Tetra Diamond, Inc. , by Viola Adams, Secretary, states that Tetra Diamond has not previously created four par- cels. The appellant also states that , contrary to the Planning Division's decision, all parcels considered by staff are not con- tiguous and that Norman Adams, et ux, does not control the appli- cant . -8-