After more than three hours of discussion and testimony, and
despite threats from vineyards owner Frank Leal that he would take
his business elsewhere, county supervisors this week decided to
postpone their decision regarding an appeal to the planning
commission granting Leal Vineyards a use permit. The attorney
representing Leal at Tuesday’s meeting, meanwhile, works for a
local law firm owned by one of the county planning commissioners
whose decision is being challenged.
After more than three hours of discussion and testimony, and despite threats from vineyards owner Frank Leal that he would take his business elsewhere, county supervisors this week decided to postpone their decision regarding an appeal to the planning commission granting Leal Vineyards a use permit.
The attorney representing Leal at Tuesday’s meeting, meanwhile, works for a local law firm owned by one of the county planning commissioners whose decision is being challenged.
The board Tuesday continued the matter to June 22 in hopes that supervisors can gain more information on three matters – noise, fire-code compliance and traffic – all concerns broached by a neighboring property owner who submitted the appeal.
After the five supervisors indicated they would need more data to make a decision, Leal rushed out of the room and slammed the door before the proceedings were done.
Leal Vineyards neighbor Bill Lee filed the appeal after the planning commission accepted Leal’s permit on April 7. The complaint suggests that Leal Vineyards is out of compliance with an array of county codes.
Lee said he did not have the opportunity to give testimony at the April commission meeting because he was notified too late.
Lee’s complaint focused on noise issues and activities at Leal lasting past 10 p.m., which is the cut-off time stipulated in the business owner’s agreement with the county in 2004.
Lee, who said he lives 50 feet from Leal Vineyards, complained that the noise often has been too loud to sleep at night.
He also argued that the county treats the vineyard as being in a commercial zone. He contended it’s not and should be listed as a rural residential zone.
Lee testified in front of the board to ask for “preservation of his landowning rights.”
“It’s kind of a sad state that I had to file this appeal and be here today, but it’s been difficult to sleep many times because of the noise that has come from the event center over there,” Lee said.
Many events have surpassed the 10 p.m. curfew, including one Saturday that went to 11 p.m., according to Lee. He stated that he called the sheriff’s office to go there and shut it down when the activities went past 10 p.m. The sheriff’s office took a complaint from Lee on Saturday but nothing was done.
“This is turning into a Hatfield and McCoy situation, and it shouldn’t have to be,” Lee said. “I’m not here today to ask you to shut down Mr. Leal’s operation. Truthfully, I think Mr. Leal’s operation, if run properly, is a phenomenal asset to San Benito County.”
Lee also complained that the county doesn’t have a proper way to monitor the noise volume. According to the county general plan, a noise-level maximum is listed for certain times of the day in different types of areas, such as rural or commercial. But according to Lee, the county doesn’t own the equipment to enforce such a law.
“I know the county is strapped. I know all of us in this economic times are strapped, so where does the money come from?” Lee said. “Does it come from the applicant? Does it come from the county or does it just not happen?”
Lee said the county needs to enforce its laws, instead of letting Leal get away with violations.
“If the county is going to let a rule breaker do what he wants to do, the county is only going to get a county full of rule breakers,” Lee said.
Assistant Planner Byron Turner presented to the board the litany of violations from Leal Vineyards, which included a wine cave facility built in recent years there without a permit.
In 2005 and 2006, the county sent a total of four letters stating that Leal Vineyards was not in compliance with the permit stipulations from 2004.
The 2004 agreement includes developing a left-turn lane on Fairview Road, which has yet to be done. It also noted how the tent structure on the property is “temporary” and should be taken down each year. According to Turner, this never has been done.
In 2009, the county sent Leal a notice to shut down all operations until he could get his business up to code, but Leal has continued to host parties there through last weekend.
In April, the planning commission came up with a new plan that allowed Leal to show that no turn lane was needed and to continue operating the business as it has been doing.
Leal’s representative Christine Breen – an attorney for De Vries Law Group that is owned by Planning Commissioner Daniel De Vries – asked for fairness from the board.
See the full story in the Pinnacle on Friday.
