SU0009186 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-5- the affirmative. APPEAL STATEMENT NO. 4 In their appeal statement, the appellants state, "Finding#2 is highly suspect because of the applicant's established, unresolved record of operating `without benefit of proper permit'...and the applicant continues to operate illegally after being told face-to-face not to." RESPONSE TO APPEAL STATEMENT NO. 4 The Community Development Department opened an enforcement case(EN-1200170) for this property on April 12, 2012. Enforcement action was taken due to the construction of the wine garden without the benefit of required permits and expansion of the land use without benefit of required permits. Upon further review of the property, a commercial kitchen was also constructed without the benefit of required permits and the applicant also exceeded the permitted attendance at marketing events from the maximum permitted number of twenty-five(25)people. The applicant submitted the subject Site Approval application on April 20, 2012 to seek compliance for the construction of the wine garden, commercial kitchen, and increase in number of marketing events and number of attendees. On June 22, 2012, the Community Development Department met with the applicant and relayed information that the wine garden structure or commercial kitchen can not be utilized until approval of this Site Approval application(PA- 1200063) and the required permits are obtained. Additionally,information was relayed to the applicant clarifying the marketing event definition and that a wedding would not constitute as a wine club event. Since that time,however,violations have occurred and, upon review of website advertisements and correspondence with the catering company, it was determined the commercial kitchen structure was utilized and a marketing event did take place exceeding the maximum permitted number of 25 attendees. If the applicant does not comply with the Conditions of Approval,the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors may initiate action to revoke or modify any development approval pursuant to Development Title Section 9-230. The Planning Commission was able to make Finding No. 2 in the afirmafve. APPEAL STATEMENT NO. 5 In their appeal statement, the appellants state, "Finding#4 is wrong because the issuance of the permit is injurious to the property or improvements of adjacent properties... [because] the bulk of the already—built St. Jorge Winery infrastructure is crowded very close to the Winery's property line in a location immediately adjacent to the Isolas' home... The noise impacts from the proposed uses can not be mitigated to a level which is not significantly detrimental to the adjacent Isola property."