SU0012756 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

# 2 of 3 Addendum to MS-88-3 II. Mr. .Jagir is not an owner operator as is stated in the Commission's response to the petition and upon which the Commission's decision was based. III. If the Planning Commission's decision is not reversed, it is possible for Mr. Jagir to create further subdivisions. The statement of limitations in the Planning Commission's letter dated 8-13-87 is without force and effect. The statement fails to recognize that 1) a house can also be built (without request for variance) on parcel 3; 2) that a purchaser of parcel B can also request a one acre variance, creating yet another subdivision; and 3) the large parcel can continue to be transferred with subsequent purchasers each obtaining a one acre variance. IV. No hearing was held by the Planning Department before granting the variance even though opposition had been duly filed. V. In making the decision to grant the two acre split, the Commission gave consideration based on issues that were not in the Commission's realm; that issue was Mr. Jagir's desire to obtain financing without encumbering his "farming operation." One's ability to finance is not the concern that the Micke Grove Plan addresses to protect this area. To consider petitioner's finances places the Commission in the role of financeer, not overseers of land use. VI. The manner that the Planning Commission notified the residents failed to note all names of property owners. VII. "The Limitations of Homesite Parcels...." indicates that "a parcel may be created for the purpose of...." as mandate, not as a permissive as is the intent of the regulation. The Commission is not obliged to grant the split. VIII. The land was purchased with the restrictions evident to the buyer. It. is not the responsibility of the county or its residents to correct a judgment error on the part of the buyer. Further, the realty background of Mr. Jagir makes him fully aware of such restrictions and implications of such. IX. This property was owned as a partnership. That partnership was not recognized when the proposal of subdivision came up before the commission .and the petition was granted. The Commission considered this proposal based on individual ownership. X. The petition was recognized as a minor subdivision and not as a variance. There seems to be an advantage when one uses one property to fold in order to acquire another property with the existing bankruptcy laws. XI. Consideration was not adequately given to public utilities and facilities. There is not sewage system to handle a subdivision. We request the Commission consider the study done by that commission, The Micke Grove Plan, which states the limitations existing in the area. XII. This proposal is inconsistent with application in this area and is not mandated by law. It is an encroachment on agricultural land use and has been applied indiscriminantly to someone designated as owner-operator, who, in reality, is not a farmer. XIII. The applicant, Mr. .Jagir, supplied no proof from the present lender relinquishing the requested acreage as security from his note. XIV. The Planning Commission ruled contrary to the decision of the Board of Supervisors on the same issue wherein the honorable Board denied Mr. Jagir's request for a one acre parcel. The August 13, 1987 ruling by the planning commission reverses the decision of the Board of Supervisors' higher authority which is contrary to law.