Amador County – The Jackson Planning Commission voted 3-0 Monday to deny a request for a subdivision of Rollingwood Estates mobile home park, saying the applicant did not completely follow legal requirements, including filing reports of the impacts on residents and non-residents of the park, if the subdivision were to occur.

More than 100 people attended the public hearing in the Jackson Civic Center, with the majority of public speakers testifying against the project. Proponent and majority owner of Rollingwood, Joe Chirco, spoke, saying: “I don’t know where all this opposition came from.” He said Rollingwood residents, in his proposal, do not have to buy their land, but can sign a lease, and “if someone buys their home, they can take over the lease.”

Chirco said he was “not trying to suck every dime out of people,” but “we’re a business and we have to make money.” He said: “As long as I own the park, we’re going to be sure that nobody is financially hurt or thrown into the street.”

Chirco’s attorney, C. William Dahlin, said a number of speakers asked the Commission to deny the application because of the survey that showed a majority did not support the project, with 135 “no” votes, 16 “yes” votes. Dahlin said “the law does not say homeowners have veto power.”

Mike Kirkley, the Sutter Creek Planning Commission chairman, whose mother lives in Rollingwood, said that surveys have been used by other jurisdictions to reject mobile home park subdivision applications, including in Capitola, Carson, Santa Rosa and Sonoma.

Dahlin said the cities of Sonoma and Carson did reject park splits on surveys, but were also “busily lobbying for Senate Bill 444,” which succinctly states that the surveys can be used by city councils and land planners to make their decisions on mobile home park subdivision applications.

Kirkley said the mobile homes were assessed at a lower rate than their purchase price, and the loss was due to the “in-place value” of the land.

Dahlin said “they don’t own the in-place value,” and the “assessor’s handbook says: Don’t assess for this in-place value because the home owner does not own it. That is, however, what is offered for sale.”

After public input, Planning Commissioner Dave Butow said he found the application did not meet several Government Code requirements, including that the applicant “shall obtain a survey of support.” Another was a lack of a report on the impact from the park’s conversion on residents, and third was an insufficient report of projected financial impacts on non-residents.

Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.