MO 2002-055 to 2002-060 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

2660 Eden Road Appea 2 October 7, 2002 Revocation of CU-93-14 meetings with representatives of the appellant did not result in adequate improvement to the situation. After close of the public hearing, the Board of Zoning Adjustments directed staff and the City Attorney's Office to return with a Resolution for revocation of the use permit. • At their August 1, 2002 meeting, the Board of Zoning Adjustments adopted a Resolution for Revocation of CU-93-14. The appellants are appealing the decision of the Board to revoke the use permit. The main appellant, Mr. Guss, indicates that his appeal is based on the allegation that the decision to revoke the permit does not fairly reflect the facts. Additionally, Mr. Guss states that the decision would unfairly deprive the community of a valuable business and an important recycling company. The remaining appellants indicate their belief that the Board of Zoning Adjustments was not receptive to any public input, either positive or negative, and that Mr. Guss has always been a good neighbor to the other businesses located along Eden Road, specifically being instrumental in maintaining Eden Road. • The fence along the shared property line between the City's Water Pollution Control Plant and this business was damaged beyond repair (portions of fence were laying flat on the ground, having been bent over by the weight of materials piled against the fence). In order to maintain security at the plant, a decision was made to have the fence replaced as soon as possible. The cost for installation of the fence was $5,896. Staff is recommending that the City Council add a condition to the project that requires the appellant to reimburse the City for this cost, as the new fence was required as a direct consequence of on -site operations. Recommendation: Since the August 1, 2002 Board of Zoning Adjustments meeting, the applicant has brought the site into substantial compliance. Therefore, staff is recommending that the City Council consider the following two options: 1) Continue the item for a period of three months to allow the City to reach an agreement with the appellant for reimbursement of funds spent on the new fence. This time will also be used by staff to monitor compliance. Staff will return to the City Council in three months time with a report on compliance and the fence reimbursement; OR, 2) Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustments. BACKGROUND • In 1993, a Conditional Use Permit was issued which allowed for the recycling of concrete and asphalt through the processing of the material into two -foot by two -foot size pieces for removal for further processing to another location outside of San Leandro. • Beginning in early 1995, City staff was made aware of changes in the operator's business activities (specifically, the import of dirt), and possible violations of