EXHIBIT 15-E
CONSIDER APPEAL OF DISTRICT GENERAL MANAGER’S DECISION TO DENY
A WATER PERMIT FOR A THIRD BATHROOM ADDITION TO
1. FINDING: Mr. Steve McDannold appealed a District decision denying a water permit application at 905 Ocean View Blvd, Pacific Grove.
EVIDENCE: Application for Appeal shown at Exhibit 15-B.
2. FINDING: Mr. McDannold’s water permit application was denied because the property added a second bathroom in 2003 using the second bathroom provision of Rule 24, and was therefore limited to no more than two bathrooms.
EVIDENCE: District’s Denial of Water Permit Application shown as Exhibit 15-A.
3.
FINDING: The addition of a third
bathroom would result in more than two bathrooms on the site and would be
contrary to District Rule 24-A-3.
EVIDENCE: District Rule 24, Second Bathroom Addition, shown as Exhibit 15-C.
4. FINDING: The water permit issued to Mr. McDannold by the District in 2003 included recordation of a Deed Restriction Regarding Limitation On Use Of Water On A Property
EVIDENCE: Deed Restriction Regarding Limitation On Use Of Water On A Property (Exhibit 15-D).
5. FINDING: The deed restriction clearly lists the water fixtures that are allowed on the site, and clearly states that “credit shall not be granted for removal or retrofit of any fixture added pursuant to the second bathroom accounting protocol allowed by Rule 24C…” The deed restriction also states that present and/or future water use is restricted by the District’s Rules and Regulations and that approval of future water permits “may be withheld by the Water Management District, in accord with then applicable provisions of law.”
EVIDENCE: Deed Restriction Regarding Limitation On Use Of Water On A Property (Exhibit 15-D).
6. FINDING: The second bathroom provision was amended in 2004 to clarify that a property adding a second bathroom under this rule was limited to two athrooms unless the second bathroom was permitted with a debit to a jurisdiction’s water allocation or offset with on-site credits.
EVIDENCE: Ordinance No. 114, adopted May 17, 2004, on file at the District office.
7. FINDING: The amendments to the second bathroom provision were discussed during three public hearings of the Board (in February April and May 2004), were published in the local newspaper and on the District’s website, and were sent to each of the jurisdictions within the District. In addition, the issues addressed in the amendment ordinance were discussed at length in public meetings of the Water Demand Committee, beginning in June 2003.
EVIDENCE: Minutes of Board and committee meetings, copies of newspaper postings and lists of Board packet recipients on file at the District office.
8. FINDING: The amendments to the second bathroom provision were discussed during three public hearings of the Board (in February April and May 2004), were published in the local newspaper and on the District’s website, and were sent to each of the jurisdictions within the District. In addition, the issues addressed in the amendment ordinance were discussed at length in public meetings of the Water Demand Committee, beginning in June 2003.
EVIDENCE: Minutes of Board and committee meetings, copies of newspaper postings and lists of Board packet recipients on file at the District office.
9. FINDING: The application for appeal states that the applicant “based years of work on Ordinance 98…” The deed restriction that was recorded on the title when the second bathroom was permitted by the District does not reference Ordinance No. 98. The deed restriction references the District’s Rules and Regulations, including the possibility that the rules can change. Ordinance No. 98 specifically references this possibility for revision in Section Six, where it states: “During each calendar year, the board shall review the District Rule enacted by this ordinance to determine whether or not amendment or revocation is warranted. Such action, however, shall require enactment of an implementing ordinance. A comprehensive review of the District Rules affected by this ordinance shall be held during calendar year 2006.” Mr. McDannold, in his reliance on Ordinance No. 98, should have been alert to the potential for change
EVIDENCE: Deed Restriction Regarding Limitation On Use Of Water On A Property (Exhibit 15-D) and Ordinance No. 98 on file at the District office.
10. FINDING: Approval of this appeal would be contrary to the provisions of District Rule 24-A-3.
EVIDENCE:
District Rule 24, Second Bathroom
Addition, shown as Exhibit 15-C.
U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2007\2007boardpackets\20070222\PublicHrgs\15\item15_exh15e.doc