Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br /> granted appellant ' s appeal, reversing the Planning <br /> Commission ' s decision to allow respondent Jagir a Minor <br /> Subdivision identical to the one which is the subject of <br /> this appeal. The Planning Commission has blatantly disre- <br /> garded the higher authority of this Honorable Board, is <br /> contrary to law, and has forced appellants to incur unne- <br /> cessary appeal expenses. <br /> Response <br /> The Minor Subdivision application submitted by the <br /> applicant is not identical to the one previously <br /> reviewed by the Board in that this proposal is for a <br /> 2 . 0 acre parcel and a 45 acre remainder. The previous <br /> request was for a one acre parcel and a 46 + acre <br /> remainder. — <br /> ° The Planning Title defines an "owner-operator" as an <br /> individual, firm, association, syndicate, partnership, <br /> or corporation having sufficient proprietary interest <br /> in property to exert direct control over its use and <br /> development and in its day-to-day operations (Section <br /> 9-3115. 2 ) . Based on this Code definition and the evi- <br /> dence submitted by the applicant, the application was <br /> approved. <br /> ° The proposal was considered on its own merit and meets <br /> the Code provisions to establish an owner-operator <br /> homesite. This action is consistent with previous <br /> actions taken by the Planning Commission in deter- <br /> mining the "owner-operator" of an agricultural opera- <br /> tion. Nothing is presented in the appeal to <br /> contradict this determination. <br /> 2. Basis of Appeal <br /> The Planning Commission arbitrarily took it upon them- <br /> selves not to hold a public hearing even though requested <br /> - which they did do one year ago. The Planning Commission <br /> forced appellants to file an appeal to that body when it <br /> was known with certainty what the outcome would be based <br /> on the advocacy position taken by staff and Planning <br /> Commission reflected in their staff report. This was <br /> detrimental to appellants and forced them to incur unne- <br /> cessary costs and expenses. <br /> Response <br /> ° The application was processed under the staff review <br /> with notice provisions of the Planning Title and no <br /> public hearing is involved unless an action is <br /> appealed to the Planning Commission within ten (10 ) <br /> BOS LETTER PAGE 2 <br />