Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12031985 - X.10 T): BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Supervisor Tom Torlakson Contra Costa December 3 , 1985 County DATE: l TEMPORARY CARETAKER MOBILE HOME PERMITS: SUBJECT: APPLICATION NOS. 2107-84(A) , 2096-85 (A) , AND 2201-76 , MARSH CREEK AREA SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: As it pertains to the temporary caretaker mobile home permits , and specifically, to the above-referenced applications, I recommend: 1. that a thorough and immediate investigation be conducted by ( a) the Community Development Department (on alleged land use violations) ; (b) the Building Inspection Department (on alleged grading violations) ; and (c) the Health Department (on alleged contamination of water table standards and improper well and sewer connection) to determine whether a revocation hearing should be set; and further request a report back to the Board on December 17 , 1985 ; 2 . a stay on the 90-day period of judicial review while the investigations are being conducted; 3 . a review of our ordinance with a focus on the clear problem of lack of procedure for notifying effected property owners of the administrative process we currently have for approving temporary caretaker permits; 4 . stay issuance of any other permits on the current caretaker permit for which land preparation is already underway ( 2096-85 ) . Instruct the Building Inspection Department to hold any clearance of inspection until alleged land use and other violations are investigated and, if founded, corrected. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: I met today at noon with Tom Duffy and Tennys Duffy ( residents of Marsh Creek Road whose property neighbors the above-referenced caretaker mobile homes) , Larry Smith ( the Duffy' s attorney) , Sil Marchesi of County Counsel, and Bob Drake of the Community Development Department. Mr. Duffy had requested this meeting to voice his concerns about the issuance of these caretaker permits. Mr. Duffy expressed a strong protest that he was not noticed about these applications which have caused a tremendous impact on his property (visual and environmental). Permit No. 2201-76 has expired but the mobile home is still on the site. Bob Drake indicated he would tour the site on Wednesday, December 4 . r CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) ACTION OF BOARD ON Deee rr 3 y . 198 rj APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS x II UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD Director of Community DevelopmentOF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. County Administrator December 3, _ 1985 CC: Building Inspection ATTESTED T� Health Services y; ' Phil Batrhelor, Clerk of the Board of County Counsel ( Supervisors and-Goin,-tyAdministrator M3e2/7-68 BY,fJ.! �, c�uJ ���-�UaG�•�D� DEPUTY Temporary Caretaker Mobile Home Permits December 3 , 1985 Page TWO The permit process allows for 90 days to appeal the permit but no notices are given to neighbors so no one is aware the permit is even granted. It is interesting to note that the permit contains the statement: "This matter not having been appealed within the time prescribed by law, a permit f,or temporary caretaker mobile home, is hereby granted, . . . " The reason for such strong action on this is that it appears there has been misrepresentation to the county as to the nature of the need for these caretaker permits. Apparently, the need that was identified in the applications for these permits was the need to supervise some horses on the property. (During a tour of the site, my aide noted five horses and no one in sight. ) I question the need for three caretakers to watch over a few horses. The permits indicate that "the caretaker of the subject property shall be present on the site most hours of the day" and that they would be temporary in nature; e.g. Application#2201-76, Condition #6: "This permit shall be valid for a period of two ( 2 ) years. " I believe there are grounds for administratively staying any further work on Application 2096-85 until the investigations are completed. TT:gro ( \OFC\TCMHP.PEI ) a