|
balance a rural agricultural lifestyle with some urban needs for the, you know, the commercial
<br />areas. And I don’t think that we’ve done as good a job of addressing it as we could have. The CDP
<br />didn’t even recognize that there was an existing business, there were existing buildings; just like if,
<br />okay, if you shut down the automotive business, what becomes of those buildings, what do you do
<br />with those existing buildings – they predate. So it’s a tough balancing act. We were trying to be
<br />consistent with the earlier permits that had this vision that the business would move; but in light of
<br />what the Commission has just done with the Caitano application, I think you have to take a look at
<br />the specifics of Mr. DeLuz’s application and determine what is equitable and fair under the
<br />circumstances.
<br />GIFFIN: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to ask the Director a question. Then going back to the new
<br />Condition No. 3, are you still recommending that? On Page 4.
<br />LEITHEAD TODD: I’m having a tough time with this, I’m having a tough time with this because,
<br />you know, on one hand a vision of the CDP is that you try to have discrete areas where you direct
<br />your more commercial types of businesses; on the other hand you have an existing business in
<br />buildings that existed before the business was created and which existed for the purpose of repairing
<br />agricultural equipment, so those buildings were there. This allows the continued use of those
<br />buildings. And in light of Caitano being approved, farther out of town in Rural, whereas this is
<br />closer to town and Urban on the LUPAG, and LUPAG is supposed to trump, basically,the CDP.
<br />And so I’m trying to balance this, because the bulk of the property is in active agriculture, which is
<br />consistent with the vision of the CDP, but this allows the continued use of the existing buildings and
<br />doesn’t allow you to do a 7-Eleven. And so, given what the Commission did in Caitano, I think it is
<br />more reasonable and more fair to grant the special permit to Mr. DeLuz without the time limit, since
<br />you did not put a time limit on the Caitanos’. My level of discomfort is that this has been a
<br />condition that has been in place for a long period of time, but I’m somewhat concerned about
<br />disparate treatment of similar applications. And with the Caitanos, you had something brand new
<br />that didn’t exist that, you know, they proceeded to build before they got the permit. You have
<br />something here that has been in existence and is utilizing existing buildings that have previously
<br />been used for agricultural equipment repair. And so trying to balance that, it actually makes more
<br />sense for this one to have the permit than the one that the Commission already approved.
<br />MOOERS: Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment? In understanding the Director’s concerns
<br />which I obviously share as a member of the community, I think under Condition 8, it allows the
<br />Director, you know, saying “the Planning Director may, as part of any enforcement action, refer the
<br />matter to the Planning Commission for review,” so it’s not forever. If this use becomes disruptive
<br />or offensive, I think there is a provision in this permit that the Director or the Department can come
<br />back and say, wait a minute, this is creating a problem now that either we didn’t anticipate or didn’t
<br />exist previously. And it would, you know, cause the applicant then to show cause that it wasn’t
<br />disruptive, or if it was, the permit could then be revoked. But what it would do is it would prevent
<br />the applicant from having to come back every two to three years, you know, and reapply. It’s
<br />basically, hey, if it’s not a problem, you know, and the use continues, then he doesn’t have to come
<br />back; but if at any time under Condition 8 it is a problem, the Commission would review, or the
<br />Director would ask the Commission to review the permit. And so I think it provides a certain level
<br />of checks and balances here that it couldn’t just, well, it’s got the permit,he can do whatever he
<br />wants.
<br />BOWMAN: I have a -. Maybe the staff can clarify. So the special permit is, if it’s given like, say,
<br />with Caitano, in perpetuity, that is just with the applicant itself, right?
<br />8
<br />EXHIBIT B
<br />
<br />
|