2010-02-05 TWITHERS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

complaint and then they find out, wow, in 1994 you guys got your GE license, you guys went and got a fruit stand, you guys got three permits, you guys did your house, you’re permitted the barn and, you know, you’ve got three different permits. So you did comply; and that’s great that you complied. Okay? But since 1994 have you been complying? Whether or not you knew you were complying or not you weren’t, that’s the bottom line. And, you know, the only reason why all of this is coming up is because of the complaint. And, you know, I’m just concerned that, okay, this complaint came up, so what else are we going to find? YEH: I’m not sure how to answer that. I just, like I said, the applicants over the years have evolved through a certain business. When the complaint came up and we responded to it, I said, you know what, I mean, it is a good thing to come in before the Commission, while it is from my perspective considered to be Ag tourism, nevertheless you should go in, and let’s get to this issue, clear it once and for all. I believe over the years they, they haven’t been hiding from the public, cause as you know they’re right on the road. So that’s, the best that I can say is they want to comply, they’re asking for some consideration of where they’ve come from to now and the fact that plan approval has been issued. And I understand your concern is that when you’re taking a look at are there really any changes, any adverse impacts from what they’ve been doing as opposed to what they were prevented to do, I’m not sure there are. And that’s what we’re trying to focus this on. But thank you. IWASHITA: Mr. Chair? WOODWARD: Okay, we’re getting on a lot of kind of peripheral issues here, and I’d like to keep this focused if we could. Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me make an attempt to do that. I guess I have a question for the Director. It’s that, the concerns Mr. Yeh raises on behalf of the applicant appears to address Conditions 3 and 4 of the recommendations. And as to 4, which is the survey, it appears since the boundaries of the area previously approved have not been really changed, that we really don’t need No. 4 like the Director’s concerns or point on that. DARROW: Condition No. 4 is the standard condition that we place on any special permit that’s over the amount, the property is larger than the amount of the permit area, so that we can confine the permit area to a specific area. And the only way we can identify that permit area is through a metes and bounds survey. IWASHITA: I understand that. But it appears to me that in ’94 the permitted area was approved by the Department and on the record before us today it appears everybody agrees that that area has not been exceeded. So that’s why I don’t see a need for it. That, you know, if there was an expansion of the .66-acre area that was previously approved, then I can see a need for a new metes and bounds description. But unless I’m mistaken there hasn’t been; and if there hasn’t been then I don’t think we need the standard provision. Cause the only expansion thus far that I see is the addition of the 500-square foot concrete slab. WOODWARD: I think that’s the question that Mr. Yeh is raising, is whether we have to throw all these extra conditions on for an extra 500 square feet. 13 EXHIBIT A