Laserfiche WebLink
cross a line. And I’m not saying that oh, he has, you know, a couple of pieces of roofing tin <br />lying around. I got a couple of pieces of roofing tin lying around. But, you know, there comes a <br />point where the roofing tin is no longer serviceable and you just haul it off, you know. And he <br />certainly has the equipment on his property to be able to haul off a lot of the garbage. <br />WATANABE: Mr. Domingo, looks like you have a comment. <br />DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m wondering how many of us on this <br />Commission have ever made a site visit. I mean we’re just listening and we’re looking at <br />pictures; and I think we’re making some conclusions already by what we’re hearing and what we <br />see. I don’t think that’s totally fair to the applicant, you know. Like I said, you know, it’s a <br />construction baseyard; and I don’t know that whoever the contractor may be would always keep <br />their yard as clean as we think it should be. You know, what we’re looking at is, you know, the <br />neighboring residents, they’re in agriculture, yeah, they’re in agriculture. And because they pass <br />the lot they see what they think is an eyesore, it’s something that hurts them. But they have a <br />legitimate function going on there granted by a permit. And, of course, you know, not wasting <br />any time by reiterating all the concerns that we’ve been through, you know, that’s a construction <br />baseyard, that’s it. <br />WATANABE: May I point out -? <br />SIRACUSA: I just want to say it’s not a construction baseyard. It’s not supposed to be. <br />That’s not what the permit is for. It’s supposed to be an agricultural contractor’s baseyard; and <br />there’s a difference. <br />WATANABE: Okay, okay. Mr. Rho. <br />RHO: This is my last statement. We wouldn’t be here today except for the fact <br />that the applicant didn’t follow up on the conditions that the applicant was supposed to follow up <br />on. That’s the bottom line. If he had followed up on his end of the bargain and a complaint <br />came in about this, that, junkyard or whatever the allegations are, it would have been handled by <br />the inspector and the Department without bringing it up here again. Somebody would have gone <br />down there and said. no, this is an agricultural zoned thing, he got a special permit, he’s allowed <br />to have “x” number of trucks, roofing tins, water tanks, he is not pouring oil into the ground, he <br />is not putting gas into the ground, he is in compliance to all of those things. And even if he <br />wasn’t, the inspector, I assume, would have handled that by citing him, pointing him in the right <br />direction, getting him some assistance, whatever. The plants would have been grown by now. <br />After 2 ½ years we wouldn’t be here. So the real issue is whether or not he is really going to <br />comply in the next six months to a year. And I haven’t heard anything yet that leads me to <br />believe he’s going to comply. <br />So my solution was to have an inspector clear off the allegations like yesterday within a week <br />and then bring this up again at the next meeting - don’t have any, well, I don’t know if you can <br />just ban testimony - and look at that report and pass or no pass this applicant’s request. So it <br />might take another meeting, but I think it will be well worth it. <br />SIRACUSA: Perhaps you would like to make a motion, Commissioner Rho? <br /> EXHIBIT A 30 <br /> <br /> <br />