SU0012756 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

6 . Basis of Appeal Based on the decision of the Planning Commission, further subdivisions can be granted as a matter of right. The granting of respondent ' s requests now allows the building of two homes - one each on Parcels A and B. A mere transfer of the remaining large parcel will allow the sub- sequent owner to obtain the same type of "variance" and so on, down the line, creating several small one- to two-acre parcels. Response ° It is correct that, if approved, the larger parcel could subsequently be sold, thus allowing it to be developed. Any subsequent proposal to further divide would be subject to public notice and to all of the provisions of the Code. 7. Basis of Appeal No public hearing was held nor were local residents notified of the request, including myself. A hearing was held by the Planning Commission one year before. The staff report indicates that surrounding property owners were notified, and this is not true. I live on the second parcel to the west of respondent and did not receive notice. Respondent knows that I am opposed to the split, and so are the Planning Commission and staff, and it seems only too convenient that the parcel map supplied by the respondent was used by the staff and Planning Commission to give their notice, if it was given at all, and that I was not on the map. Response A total of 48 public notices were sent to surrounding property owners. In addition to mailed notices, a legal ad was published in the Stockton Record on September 7, 1987. The mailing list included Mr. Brodbeck. 8 . The Planning Commission has again taken the position that the Code mandates a parcel split. However, that is not the case, as indicated by this Honorable Board, when they reversed the Planning Commission ' s decision one year ago. Response The Planning Commission' s action was based on the abi- lity to find that the proposal met all of the criteria in the Code. BOS LETTER PAGE 4