SU0000232 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

° 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 inconsistent 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 new 30-acre parcel would be joined with other adjacent parcels as part of the family farming operation called Tetra Diamond. • In 1984 , Tetra Diamond was granted approval to create a three-acre homesite parcel with a + 157-acre remainder on property adjacent 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 parcel. On April 5 , 1988 , the Planning Division informed Mr. Adams that he could not further subdivide this property under the Minor Subdivision provisions but could process the request using a Major Subdivision application. On April 11, 1988 , an appeal was filed by Viola Adams, Secretary of Tetra Diamond, Inc. and wife of C. Norman Adams. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the appeal of the Planning Division ' s denial of Minor Subdivision application No. MS-88-85 on May 5 , 1988. It should be noted that the only issue before the Commission was whether Tetra Diamond qualified to divide property under the provisions of a Minor Subdivision application or if a Major Subdivision was required. The merits of the actual division were not discussed. After hearing all testimony, the Planning Commission denied the appeal, on a 3 to 3 vote. The appellant, Tetra Diamond, was represented by C. Norman Adams, who spoke in favor of the appeal. Edward G. Robinson, an adjacent property owner, spoke in opposition to granting the appeal. On May 13, 1988 , C. Norman Adams filed an appeal of the Planning Commission action for Tetra Diamond, Inc. BASIS FOR APPEAL: The appellant, Tetra Diamond, Inc. , by C. Norman Adams, states that Tetra Diamond has not previously created four parcels. The appellant also states that, contrary to the Planning Commission' s decision, all parcels considered by staff are not contiguous and that Norman Adams, et ux, does not control the applicant. BOS LETTER PAGE 2