SU0012756 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

t days. The Planning Division is not required to hold public hearings on this type of application. 3 . Basis of Appeal The position of the Planning Commission clearly shows a favoritism, or advocacy position, for respondent position for respondent Jagir. As addressed to this Honorable Board one year ago, appellants were convinced that respon- dent had some inside dealings with the Planning Department and/or the Planning Commission. Based on their report and the appeal to the Planning Commission, I am absolutely convinced and demand an investigation. Response ° No comment. 4 . The "greenbelt" study clearly shows the area in question to be in the Micke Grove Plan which is being denied by the Planning Commission. While informed by the Honorable Board that there is no "official greenbelt, " the study done by the County was valid and clearly indicates that it is not in the best interest of the County and surrounding residents to grant further Minor Subdivisions in this area. Response ° It is correct that no official designation exists in this area. The Planning Department conducted a study in 1977 as part of a rural planning program entitled "Micke Grove Rural Area. " This study was undertaken to closely examine specific rural areas in order to protect their agricultural potential. As part of that study several area meetings were held in 1978 at Micke Grove to seek input from area residents. As a result of those meetings, subsequent rezonings were initiated which led to reclassification of most of the area to GA-10 and GA-40. 5 . Basis of Appeal Respondent is a school teacher and real estate developer in San Joaquin County and is not an "owner-operator. " No evidence was ever provided to appellant. Response The applicant meets the definition of an "owner- operator" in the Planning Title (Section 9-3115. 2 ) . BOS LETTER PAGE 3