I thought that I had successfully “won” grandfathering to Lake Water Oriented R-4 but apparently I”m easily confused. I am now CR zoned with hints of grandfathering within the Board of Supervisors (BOS) “facts in finding” and as per the planning commission”s discussion ? with the term grandfathering “redefined” as changing my business practice to limited-mixed-use.
Grandfathering normally means, the proven historic use “1984 existing motel/apartment” may continue unchanged. The BOS after acknowledging that my entire building was grandfathered, played with one of the motel definition”s verbiage “for transient automobile travelers” and determined that I could not rent more than five rooms for indefinite long-term occupancy.
There were no previous limitations as to how many rooms and which ones would be used for transient versus long-term.
From the beginning, the county objected to my lack of motel-ishness. It all seemed so strange that while most of the motels in the county offer rent for more than 30 consecutive days, especially during the winter months, they made my business their high-priority case. It”s still a mystery to me as to their reasoning when I seemed to be satisfying a social/economic need. Why then were they attached to enforcing motel-ishness during one of the worst tourist economies Lake County has experienced?
I also don”t understand why they kept calling me a “project applicant” when I never applied for anything. I was only trying to defend against a once again, confusing “Notice of Violation.”
First they complained that I had completely converted to long-term use, when in fact I still started everyone on a transient occupancy basis. Then they complained about my mixed-use, which they originally claimed had never been legal and thus could not be grandfathered.
Between the confusing dates and definitions and inability to ask questions and get them answered at the BOS meeting, I have come to a conclusion, I am too stupid to defend myself against the county. After several decades, two of which during my ownership, my case became the case whose business practice became limited; effectively halving my ability to respond to the need for housing.
Sad to see rooms sit empty, turning away people who have no more than a paycheck in-hand and a need for a roof over their head. Now those same people can only stay for a matter of weeks and we charge them the tax originally meant to be paid by tourists using extra cash i.e. discretionary funds. Most of these people do not have extra cash.
Wouldn”t it be nice if the county saw fit to truly grandfather me and allow all of my building to continue the proven practice of decades past, at least until they themselves provide housing for people who don”t pass credit checks or don”t have a full-month”s rent and related deposits ready?
Veronica Fisher
Lakeport
