Agenda Item

7.9 21-1315 Consideration of Proposed Findings of Fact and Decision in the Appeal of Don and Margie Van Pelt (AB 21-04)

   Oppose     Neutral     Support    
2500 of 2500 characters remaining
  • Default_avatar
    Pamela Kicenski almost 3 years ago

    I am fully in support of the Van Pelt Family appeal and also feel it should be WITH Prejudice. Tax dollars gained from Commercial Cannabis Cultivation should not take priority over resident’s quality of life, water resources, the fragile ecosystem and potential problems with the watershed into Shindler Creek. Traditionally marijuana grows were in remote locations and less than 1/2 acre. That was for a good reason. Grows should not be located near residential areas. State of California Department of Cannabis Control does not even have a category greater than 1 acre and is not issuing permits until after 1/1/2023. How are all these grows greater than 1 acre obtaining a permit?

  • Default_avatar
    County Resident almost 3 years ago

    Should be approved WITH prejudice. How are applicants that have shown a complete disregard for the process/regulations expected to be good land stewards? Any applicant that receives a fine before a permit should automatically be denied & the violation should be attached to the person & the land to prevent a simple name change & re-application. The county has let many residents down with this whole process while continuing to approve questionable projects. With staff shortages or even a fully staffed office, the county cannot be expected to be looking over their shoulders daily.

    With the market bottoming out the way it is, now is not the time to be approving more projects. Soon, Lake County will be asked by growers to follow the lead of Sonoma Co in asking for their taxes to be waived. This is not what voters approved & should not be considered in any way if brought to the BOS. Grants are ridiculous as well. Can't afford it, don't get into the industry. Approve appeal WITH prejudice.

  • Default_avatar
    Donna Mackiewicz almost 3 years ago

    Sourz UP 21-10 is still in operation around the clock: generators, trucks with trailers/no plates coming and going. 12/9 Beltramo/Code Enforcement email said "informed" demo permit "finaled", "grading didn't trigger a permit" "appeal before BOS sometime next year, late Jan or Feb" and "appeal will be public information". Why is this action being considered today and when was the public notice? Have I been misinformed by Code Enforcement? A violation should be upheld and 24 NEW violations should trigger a warning for careful follow-up, not assume things have been done, correct?

  • Default_avatar
    Betsy Cawn almost 3 years ago

    When will the Board of Supervisors, the Administration, the Community Development Department, the Departments of Public Works, Water Resources, Environmental Health, and Risk Management address the conflicts between unregulated extraction of finite groundwater supplies for commercial cannabis operations and the necessity to conserve water supplies in light of the declared drought emergency and anticipated long-term drought conditions? When will the Lake County [Community] Risk Reduction Authority address the conflicts between unregulated extraction of finite groundwater supplies for permitted commercial cannabis operations and the needs for fire suppression flows that are already impaired by failed and failing delivery infrastructure and the long-known lack of adequate water supplies (e.g., Kelseyville Riviera's Mt. Konocti County Water District)?

  • Default_avatar
    George MacDonald almost 3 years ago

    The Findings of Fact and Decision (the “Findings”) of the Board concerning the Appeal as disclosed on the Agenda for the Board’s Dec. 21 meeting are not valid or operative. All of the matters mentioned in the Notice of Nuisance dated November 10, 2021 (“Notice”) were timely removed in accordance with the Notice. There was no violation of Chapter 5 or Chapter 21 of the Zoning Ordinance. On December 6, 2021, the Lake County Building Department and Code Enforcement conducted a follow up inspection of the Project site. These officials field verified that all matters discussed in the Notice were removed within the time requested in the Notice, the site was fully restored, and therefore, no code or zoning violations exist on the Project site.

    The Board should not err by adopting factually and legally incorrect, invalid findings. The Board should instead decline to adopt the Findings and schedule a further hearing to reconsider the Appeal.

    George MacDonald, Esq.
    Katzoff & Riggs LLP