Laserfiche WebLink
to appeal this to the Board of Appeals. The Planning Department is not given absolute power in <br />this; there is a check and balance in that the person can make an appeal to the Board of Appeals <br />and challenge and say what I’m doing is allowed in the zoning district or I’m not doing it <br />anyway, and challenge the notice of violation. <br />So currently the Code says that the appeal stays the provisions of the order. So it’ll also, it <br />operates to stay the fine. So that means that if the person continues doing what they are doing, <br />what with, they appeal and they continue what they are doing, there is no fine until the final <br />action of the Board of Appeals, which typically can be two to three months down the road. And <br />if there’re any delays, then again they just get to keep on with the activity. Now so this proposal <br />is to change the Zoning Code, so it says that the appeal does not stay the order of the Director. <br />Now as a practical matter, this applies really only to the running of fines. So and what it means <br />is that the person would, if the person stops what they are doing, they can still appeal, and if they <br />win, then they can start up again. If they, but, and if they stop doing what they are doing, then <br />they don’t have any daily fines; they don’t accrue. So that’s the choice of the person that’s been <br />cited. If the person wants to keep doing the activity despite the cease and desist order, then they <br />run the risk that they will lose at the Board of Appeals and then the fines will accrue during that <br />timeframe. Our concern about the current situation is that it does create an incentive for the <br />person to make an appeal regardless of the merits because it allows them to continue with <br />whatever they, whether it’s a, you know, they might be operating an auto repair shop in a <br />residential neighborhood, something like that; that gives them two to three months that they can <br />keep doing what they are doing in the violation and not have any consequences while the appeal <br />plays out. So that’s the reason for this amendment. <br />WATANABE: Do we have -? Mr. Domingo. <br />DOMINGO: Mr. Yuen, have you had any occasion where people have been doing this <br />and they somewhat abuse the provisions of the law? <br />YUEN: Yes. <br />DOMINGO: Plenty? <br />YUEN: Yes. Well, from our point of view, yes. You know, we have had appeals <br />where the Department ultimately was successful and we felt that certainly there was no question <br />or doubt that there was a violation. But the appeal happened and the person, you know, <br />continues to operate for several months while the appeal runs its way on the process, and at the <br />end of the appeal the Department is upheld, but the person has operated for several months. <br />DOMINGO: Mr. Torigoe -. <br />WATANABE: Follow-up? <br />DOMINGO: Mr. Torigoe, can you think of any situation, and not specifically only to, <br />you know, these land use matters, in which a law is broken and that, you know, you follow the <br />same pattern that is followed by what this, the present ordinance permits? <br />EXHIBIT C <br />2 <br /> <br />