SU0004362 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

see the aerial photograph which is a true depiction of the condition of the site as well as photos taken 1/27/2002. The photographs have been taken from various directions so the impact of this current usage and misuse can be seen. Equity demands that the Applicants first bring the property into compliance with the existing permit before any consideration is given the changes and expansion requested in this Application. Legal Objections: The current Use Permit 76-71 was for one building, plus a proposed building,for a total of two building for repair. A Hay barn was added at a later time, plus various buildings on the property started being used. This current application calls for the use of THREE buildings, all of equal size per the application,therefore this is it 33% increase from a modest calculation,which under either SJCC Section 9-818.5 can be a 25% increase in building and a 10% increase in use overall site expansion or 9-821.5.it can be a 25% expanpion of buildings, both of which are exceded by this application. However based upon the maps submitted by the Applicant there are actually SEVEN buildings used in the operation, which further increases the useage from U75-71. The third building was placed on the property legally as a hay barn. The fact that the owners expanded it's use without County approval process cannot be ignored, nor the use of the other four buildings. The increase exceeds 33%, and is not allowed under the SJCC. It is improper to bring the current uses into complaince by the site approval process under SJCC 9- 818.5 or 9-821.5, but rather a new Use Permit is required. The buildings used and the type of operation bear no resemblance to farm equipment repair, the currently allowed use. It must be disclosed, which it has not, what percentage of either the shops or site are for repair, and what will be custom agricutlural maunficturing, otherwise no true estimate on any increase can be made. There is inadequate information to base a conclusion thle the expandsion will not violate 9-818 or 9- 821.5. it appears from the documents submitted and the site plans that farm repair will no longer occur,which shows that this is not an expansion, but an entirely new use that does not logically flow from the prior farm equipment repair operation. This is simply the total conversion from farm repair to manufacturing. SPECIFIC COMIENTS ON THE PROJECT/APPLICATION REVIEW: Proposed There is an implication and misstatement of fact that the usage as requested has occurred since 1956. Cope Manufacturing did not become an owner of the subject property until 1976, and the present owners in 19%. The use permit was received in 1976, and clearly states the usage. In 1996 imme#iately after the purchase the current owners and applicant(s) were given a copy of U76-71 so that they would be on cleat notice of the restrictions on use. The applicants have expanded and purchased new businesses which they have bought to the premises in the last 5 years, one of which was maning equipment, another concrete mixing systems. They have improperly expanded the use in violation of the original permit. This operation exceeds the allowed use for the A 40 zone which prohibits Manufacturing. At least one business on the site manufacture a put for a cement