I'm of the opinion that the Amador County Planning Department is making decisions without oversight and basing them on who they personally like or dislike.

Take the case of Ken and Jeanne Deaver, who approached the department for a boundary line adjustment to provide farm labor quarters; there was a mobile home on each of the two parcels involved allowed by a use permit. The planning department denied the request as it put two mobile homes on one parcel. However, researching the 2005 Amador County Housing Element and California law on employee housing, it appeared to the Deavers that county planning staff might be in error, so they appealed it to the Amador County Planning Commission.

The commission deadlocked on a 2-2 vote, with one member absent, so the appeal was denied, prompting the Deavers to take their case to the board of supervisors. Hiring an attorney who asked some worthy questions, planning staff uncovered new information that compelled the Deavers to request supervisors send the item back to the planning commission. Still with me?

Documents from the state of California show the Deavers meet requirements for their boundary line adjustment and farm labor housing units, that they could actually have more homes on the parcel under state law and that they should have been granted an over the counter permit. This time, in line with state law, a fully present planning commission voted in favor of the Deavers.

Here's where it gets interesting.

One would think the story would end here. However, on Sept. 9, county planning director Susan Grijalva appealed the planning commission's decision to the board of supervisors, saying that the planning commission did not have the authority to waive the requirement for a use permit (despite the fact the county housing element doesn't require one), that there is no evidence the farm labor units would be regulated by the state (both units are already approved with a county use permit) and that, because the use permit was not raised in the original appeal, the commissioners could not make their decision.

And what does the board of supervisors decide? It, in turn, votes to send the item back to the planning department, thus circumventing the decision of its planning commission.

I know there is quite a bit of circular movement here, but bear with me. You'd think, based on the planning commission's decision and the fact that the state of California agrees with the Deaver's plans for farm labor quarters, the issue would be over.

Amador County's housing element, adopted by the county to be implemented by the planning department, does not meet accepted state requirements, specifically with regard to updating our zoning laws and proving they are using state standards. In fact, a state consultant told me that the planning department appealing the decision of its planning commission in this manner is unprecedented.

A couple of items should strike fear into the hearts of property owners in Amador County. The planning department has no oversight - it's failed to update and implement state-mandated zoning laws. The department has also implemented, in the past, zoning changes based on its needs, desires and whims. And lastly, as I feel this case illustrates, the planning department can take personal feelings about individual property owners and harass, delay and deny requests as they see fit without answering to anyone.

My hope is that if you are a property owner, the planning department likes you. Because if they don't, it's going to cost you thousands and no one is going to listen or provide oversight. To date, neither the board of supervisors nor the planning department has answered the Deavers as to when their request on this matter will be heard, addressed or answered.

Maybe readers of this commentary could look into my accusations and opinions, speak with members of the planning commission and send e-mails, phone calls and letters to the planning department, planning commission and the board of supervisors before they find themselves in a similar predicament, having to hire attorneys and spend hard-earned money on what appears be a clash of personalities, not of laws.