SU0012756 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Appeal re: MS-88-3 ; Owner: G. Charles Jagir 2 . The planning commission(PC) arbitrarily took it upon themselves not to hold a public hearing even though requested-which they did do one year ago.The PC forced appellants to file an appeal to that body when it was known with certainty what the outcome would be based on the advocacy position take by the staff and PC reflected in their Staff Report. This was detrimental to appellants and fcrced them tc incur unnecessary costs and expenses. 3 . The position of the PC clearly shcf4o4 a favoritism or advocacy position for respondent Jagir . As addressed to this Honorable Board one year ago appellants were convinced that respondent had some inside dealings with the planning department and/or the PC. Based on their report and the apeal to the PC, I am absolutely convinced and demand an investigation. 4 . The "Greenbelt" study clearly shd's the area in question to be in the Micke Grove plan which is being denied by the PC. While informed by the Honorable Board that their 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. 5 . 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 appellants . 6 . Based on the decision of the PC further subdivisions can be grante as a matter of right. The granting of respondents requests now allows the builing of two homes , one each on parcel A and B. A mere transfer of the remaing large parcel will allow the subsequent owner to obtain the same type of "variance" and so on down the line, creating several small one to two acre parcels . 7 . No public hearing was held nor were local residents notified of the request, including myself . A hearing was held by the PC 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 is the PC and Staff, and it seems only tocconvenient that that the parcel map supplied by respondent was used by the Staff and PC to give their notice, if it was given at all, and that I was not on the map. 8 . The PC 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 PC' s decision one year ago. 9 . The properte owned is a parnership made up of several families . It is not conceivable that the other owners are content to allow respondent only to build a home. While for some purposes the law may recognise a partnership as an individual, it certainly has no place for such recognition when it comes to building a single family residence. -2-