SU0008455 SSNL - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

11 The finding reads: "This finding can be made because [. . . 3] The nearest residence is located 115 feet away from the project site on the parcel to the south." Facts: This portion of Finding 5 is wrong because these setbacks are not allowed under similar circumstances elsewhere in the County. The finding's logic: 1) Because "The nearest residence is located 115 feet away from the project site on the parcel to the south," therefore 2) "This finding can be made" Argument: Simply being located 115 feet away from a residence is not legal justification for allowing what is proposed. Because this "marketing event" activity and its necessarily associated impacts are not allowed elsewhere in the county under similar circumstances, they should not be allowed under these circumstances, for the same reasons of concern. Conclusion: The proposed use is not compatible with the Isolas' adjoining residential land use, simply because it is "located 115 feet away from the project site." In fact, it is precisely because the proposed use is only 115 feet away from the Isolas' home that the use is not compatible. D. 5. Reason#4 Why Finding 5 is Wrong: Staff Report Improperly Employs Presumptive Correctness The finding reads: "This finding can be made because [. . . 4] As an ordinance requirement,marketing events shall end by 10:00 p.m." The finding's logic: This finding is based on an assumed premise, as follows: 1) "because [. . . ] As an ordinance requirement, marketing events shall end by 10:00 p.m.", therefore 2) "This finding can be made" Argument: The assumption is that by simply ending at 10:00 p.m., the proposed use is somehow "compatible" with the neighbors' land uses. That makes no sense in real life. The impacts are there to the neighbors no matter when the impact is required to cease being an impact.