Laserfiche WebLink
25. The pre-petition complaints that were filed with the Appellee <br /> Planning Director (Dkt. 16, JEFS page 37, ROA 039-046; Dkt. 40, JEFS 10, <br /> ROA O10), which are the subject of the petitions in question, show the <br /> following: <br /> a. Four complainants describe the Appellees Neal and <br /> Zanone's property as being located in a county-based Agricultural Project <br /> District, as did the Appellee Planning Director in his "closure letters;" <br /> four complainants describe the property as being in the larger State Land <br /> Use Agriculture District; <br /> b. All of the complainants describe the Appellees Neal and <br /> Zanone's use of their property, which is a form of rental activity, for <br /> which a permit is,required, but that no permit has been issued therefor. <br /> C. All of the complainants describe the Appellees Neal and <br /> Zanone's use of their property as a violation of land use regulations; two <br /> also describe how such use violates the project's Covenants, Conditions <br /> and Restrictions (CCRs). <br /> 26. The Appellee Planning Director's "closure letters" (Part A.11, <br /> supra) describe the dispute as whether the Appellees Neal and Zanone can use <br /> their property, which is located in a county-based Agricultural Project District, <br /> for transient accommodation purposes as a permitted use under the county <br /> Zoning Code and Ordinance 97-133. <br /> 27. The Appellee Planning Director contends that he did not <br /> have to identify the specific provisions of the county Zoning Code or Ordinance <br /> 97-133 that treat transient accommodation activity as being a direct permitted <br /> use in a county-based Agricultural Project District, but at the same time he <br /> contends that the petitioners must identify the specific provisions that declare <br /> that such activity to be a prohibited use. <br /> 28. Contrary to the Appellees Planning Director and Board of <br /> Appeals' assertion, the pre-petition January 20, 2022 letter that the attorney <br /> for the Appellants Ford, et al.'s attorney sent to the Appellee Planning Director <br /> (Dkt. 31, JEFS page 7, ROA 482-484) does not purport to augment, modify, <br /> 10 <br />