2005-12-02 TVURICH - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ALAMEDA:And hearing no objection to that, well go ahead and do that, for the record. Now can we proceed with oral argument with the applicant first. Go ahead. MR. VURICH:Okay. As far as oral arguments, Ill at this point, just make a brief opening statement and well have to let it proceed from there, I guess, to respond to. It sounds like the hearings, well do it. ALAMEDA:Okay. MR. VURICH:Okay, our brief statement is last year we requested permission to expand our business. Weve been in business over five years and received many compliments and no complaints until this application of last year. The preliminary County report has recommended approval of our expansion, the hearings officer has recommend approval of our expansion. We have 21 conditions at this time imposed upon us. And we agree to these conditions and will go forwardifwereceiveyourapproval.AndIthinkthats,Idontknowwhatelsetosayreally. Weve been working on this for a long time, weve gone through what we consider a fair hearing; and whatever else we have to do well proceed. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Okay, thank you. Any questions? Intervenor, any feedback or response? EGER:I would like to make one comment, Mr. Chairman, because this is extremely important to my point and presentation. I have no personal objections to the generic use of storage sheds or their construction and use in appropriate places. I also have no objections to Mr. and Mrs. Vurich. Weve been acquainted lightly through the years. And has, if you got a chance to read the testimony in the contested case hearing there were places where I found it possible to agree with Mr. Vurich; and one of which was that Mr. Vurichs application was faulty; and being faulty it is a matter of consequence to the County because of a failure by the Planning Department to live up to its own rules. And that is the basis for my exceptions, because there are errors throughout. And I am here today to try to get some kind of assurance from the Planning Commissioners that they are aware of those errors and how they may impact on your problems with conditions. My suggestion gently is that the 21 conditions, or 50 conditions, or 2 are meaningless unless they are going to be enforced. Mr. Vurich is under notice from the Planning Department that he is in violation of one of the, or several perhaps of the 1998 conditions; and that would be relative to the landscaping not in th existence on the property. He was given until November 29 to completely correct that condition failure. However, as of yesterday afternoon, thereis no change; and I was told that the Planning Department has only received a note that he would change one plant bougainvillea for further jasmine; and I suggest to you that that has nothing to do with the greater problem. So if this Commission is interested in its credibility in our community and its credibility with the setting of these conditions on small parcels, small cases like this one, or large, then I submit that this is a crucial precedentthat needs examination. MR. VURICH:Can I respond to that please, I mean, he just said some things that I dont believearecorrect;andIdliketoclarifythem.Wedidget-. ALAMEDA:Letmejustcheckontheprocedures.IwanttomakesureImfollowing protocol. 6EXHIBIT B