SU0004362 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

� 1 Appeal of Staff Action from Bili and Ruth Brawn Associate Planner) Attachment to Application-Appeal of Staff Action �(L 21,a Mueller,Assom Planning Application PA-02-12 of Daniel WBHS-Approved Pebruray Apn:017-140-42;20350 N.Kennifrck,Acampo,CIL 95220 Basis of the Appeal: OBJECTION: One primary basis for this appeal is the total lack of findings to support this action. It is simply granted with conditions, but there is no discussion nor findings to support this Application and it's compliance with Development Title Section 9-505.3, 9-605.6 9-818.5 and 9-821.5 and all other applicable Sections. There is no clear indication or statement as to how the property is currently used, how it relates to the surrounding properties, how and why the expansion of the current use and the addition of a new use will not have a substantial,adverse effect on the adjacent properties and area. In particular, none of the issues or concerns raised in the objection filed against this Application were addressed. In light of the Objection to Application Referral filed by Bill and Ruth Brown on 21412002, which Objection is incorporated in this appeal by this reference, these issues must be addressed and dealt with by clear and specific findings that the current application is within limitationslconditions of the above cited sections as well as all concerns and issues raised in Objections dealt with by Condition or other means of mitigation. All issues and concerns raised should be addressed. Clear evidence of illegal use of the property was provided to the County, without comment in this Approval. There is no information or reference to the surrounding property and uses. Mondavi Winery is within 1 mile of the subject property. There is no mention of the cumulative impact on the area from both the winery and this site approval, as there should be. This application cannot be taken in isolation, but it must be viewed in light of uses that are in existence in the immediate vicintiy. An Enviromental Impact Review is warranted by this Application and the potential use, as well as its impact on noise, air, water, traffic and other environmental issues. - This Application is the alleged expansion of a lawful use,yet such use is not referred to in the approval or conditions. A copy of UWI is attached to this appeal. There is a reference to the use of 2.54 acres out of an existing 10 acre parcel,however the entire 2.54 acres were not covered by U76-71. There needs to be a clear reference to what was covered by the prior use and what is the expansion. It is alleged this was not done, as to do so would make clear that the expansion is in excess of 25 %, therefore, this process would not be proper. It is requested that the conditions of U76-71 also be specifically referenced and incorporated in any Approval, so that the history of this asegae is clear. There were drainage, parking and other conditions placed on U76-71. There fust should be a finding that the Applicants are in compliance with an existing Use Permit before any expansion is considered. Such a finding should first be made before new conditions are placed on this property. It is incoueelvable that a property owner who is flauting existing requirements can be expected to comply with the new conditions and limitations. This is a case in which a bond or other security should be required to insure full and complete compliance. Objection is also made to the revised Site Plan dated February 5, 2002 as it was not served on the neighbors, and there has been improper notice and opportunity for any comment or objection to that doeameEL It does a ffar that the objections raised on 2/412005 were used to allow a "cofredlon" that is aatimely within this process. It is only after objections were raised that it become clear that the prior use is being continued.