My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 03/25/1992
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
PC 03/25/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/29/2017 4:24:59 PM
Creation date
5/25/2005 2:02:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/25/1992
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 03/25/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />~ Resolution No. PC-92-3l was entered and adopted approving Case -92-09 as motioned. <br /> <br />MATTERS CONTINTJRO FOR DECISION <br /> <br />UP-90-76. WilliAm Moss <br />To consider revocation of a use permit for a small recycling co .on facility located at <br />2803 Hopyard Road for failure to comply with conditions of ap roYal. Zoning for the <br />property is C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) District. <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Swift presented the staff report recommending denial of Case <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br /> <br />William Moss, 3460 Virgil Circle, Pleasanton, represented the app cation. He presented <br />several pieces of information to the Commission and staff: A Government Guide for <br />Beverage Container Recycling, and a Notice of Violation letter fro the Code Enforcement <br />Officer of Pleasanton. He read from Page 2 of the Guide in regar to AB 2020 and Page 3 <br />which discussed the extent of control by the City or County in recy ling facilities. Mr. Moss <br />contended that the Code has been repealed and that the City of PI ton has no right to <br />revoke his use permit. In response to a comment by Mr. Swift, M . Moss stated that he has <br />no intention of screening his recycling facility, and reiterated that e City has no right to <br />revoke his permit. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />In response to Commissioner Michelotti's question as to why he is willing to screen the <br />facility, Mr. Moss went into great detail of why he would not do . He feels he is being <br />discriminated against; that other recycling facilities are also in viol . on, if he is, and the <br />City has not revoked their permits. He thought his constitutional ri hts were being violated, <br />and in fact, did not feel that the Planning Commission had the righ to hear his case. <br /> <br /> <br />ty open anyway. Mr. <br />y, and Friday; and 9 <br /> <br />At this time Mr. Beougher pointed out that the Planning Commis . n does have the <br />authority to hear the case. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hovingh commented that he has never seen the f <br />Moss said his hours are from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. Wednesday, Thur <br />a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday. <br /> <br />Mr. Moss again stated he felt he was being discriminated against b the City as no other <br />cycling center seems to be in conformance. <br /> <br />Chairman Mahern asked if Mr. Moss was aware of the requiremen when he filed for his <br />application. Mr. Moss said that at first he was not aware and ad' it took him a month <br />to try to comply. He reiterated that he felt the Commission does n t have the right to hear <br /> <br />__ Minutes Planning Commission <br />March 25, 1992 <br /> <br />Pagell <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.