Laserfiche WebLink
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION <br /> On June 20, 1991, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on <br /> the appeal. Monte Seibel, representing the applicant, and Greg <br /> Lewis spoke in favor and C. Edward Jones and Robert Freitas spoke <br /> against the appeal. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission denied the <br /> appeal and upheld the Development Services Division ' s action to <br /> deny. <br /> On June 28 , 1991, Monte Seibel appealed the Planning Commission's <br /> action to the Board of Supervisors. <br /> Appeal Statement <br /> In his appeal, Mr. Seibel makes the following statement: <br /> "The Planning Commission did not have the authority to approve <br /> more than six parcels on a private road. " <br /> Mr. Seibel ' s above statement is accurate. The Planning Commission <br /> did not have the authority to approve the Minor Subdivision <br /> Application due to the proposal 's conflict with Board Resolution <br /> R-88-1200. The appeal of staff ' s action was heard by the Planning <br /> Commission first, rather than the Board of Supervisors, because <br /> staff action can only be appealed to the Planning Commission <br /> (Section 9-1110 [b] ) . The issues of the appeal are reviewed on <br /> pages 8 and 9 in the attached Staff Report. <br /> FISCAL IMPACT: <br /> None. <br /> ACTION TO BE TAKEN FOLLOWING APPROVAL: <br /> None. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> Y17�77- <br /> CHET DAVISSON <br /> DIRECTOR <br /> CD:CM: fa <br /> Enc: Appeal, Minutes, Staff Report <br /> c: Monte Seibel <br /> Lois Meier <br /> MS9178BL. CTM <br /> BOS PAGE NO. 2 <br />