Stanislaus County Grand Jury
• 2003-2004
Reason for Investigation a complaint was received regarding the use of parcels of agricultural land for commercial
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 10 findings
F1
All County Zoning Ordinance violations are Nuisances per Title 2, Chapter 2.92 of the Stanislaus County Code.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
The properties visited were seen to contain operations, such as commercial vehicle storage or material storage, which are not permitted in agricultural areas.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Procedure for code violations: a. Notice and Order to Abate are sent to property owner. The notice states how compliance can be attained and allows the owner 45 days to comply. b. If compliance is not gained, the case is sent to the Nuisance Abatement Hearing Board requesting the property be found a nuisance. 6 c. If the property is found to be a nuisance, the case is sent to the Board of Supervisors authorizing forced compliance and/or action by County Counsel. d. Upon authorization of forced compliance, there is a 19-day waiting period, followed by a bid process to start enforcement. e. Once compliance is gained, the property owner will be billed for the action taken.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
In January 2004, three attorneys in County Counsel’s office were deputized by the District Attorney to expedite any case requiring legal action.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
None of these cases were referred to court.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
Forced compliance does not occur without court action in “difficult cases”.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Four of the eight properties submitted by the Code Enforcement Unit involving zoning violations in agricultural zones, are in various stages of enforcement. a. Four are pending. b. Four have been closed.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
In four of the cases, enforcement action has been on-going for up to five years.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
California Government Code Section 25845 provides for the County to force code compliance and take whatever action is necessary to remove the nuisance without resorting to court action. These laws also authorize the County to charge all related costs, including attorney fees, to the owner of the property in question.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1
Stanislaus County should use all means to terminate illegal uses on agriculturally zoned land. 7
R2
Stanislaus County must initiate clean-up actions, keep track of all costs and charge such costs to the property owner.
R3
Stanislaus County must place a lien on the property to collect all incurred costs, including fines, clean-up work, administrative costs and legal costs. 8
F10
Stanislaus County Code Title 21, Section 21.116.060—Enforcement—provides that the Board of Supervisors may authorize County staff to abate a nuisance and charge the cost of abatement to the owner, even if it has to become a lien on the property. CONCLUSIONS
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 3
-
CL1 Page 2Compliance with agriculture zoning regulations is not being attained.
-
CL2 Page 2Land use violations are being tolerated and not given priority by the County.
-
CL3 Page 2The County does not take advantage of mechanisms in the State Statutes or County Codes to adequately enforce the removal of land use violations.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office