Posted by barefootjeremy on August 22, 2008 at 7:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Rodriguez said that refunding the money doesn't negate the commercial nature of the weddings. The Amodeis still need a permit for any wedding unless it's one that's customary for a homeowner to host, such as a wedding for a close friend or relative, she said."

Apparently, It is not just commercial nature that is the problem. The planning commission decides if its 'customary' for you to have that many parties or not. Does the law really say that you can only have a party if its customary? Is there a definition spelled out stating what is customary?

"The fact that your customers turned into your friends overnight is what I have a problem with,"

Is it customary for anyone to allow weddings at a home, even to complete strangers, at no charge?

Posted by ru4real on August 22, 2008 at 8:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The point that is missed here is that the Amodei's applied for the permit in June of 2007 at which time they were told that the process would take five months. They spent tens of thousands of dollars as the county put them through hoop after hoop. All the while they were told they would get their permit shortly. So they did what any reasonable person would, they went forward.

The Amodeis are the only wedding venue in the county to apply for a permit before establishing their business. They have been penalized like no other. The message that the county is sending here is don't do business in Ventura County. We will screw you anyway we can! Laws have no value. We can weave them, alter them and ignore them any way we choose and oh we will enjoy bankrupting you in the process.

I love this county, but I what have seen in the last few months makes me ill! The permit process is apparently here to make money for the county while destroying people who would be so foolish as to be upfront and honest with them.

Posted by Formosa on August 22, 2008 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Another greedy government entity trying to grab all the money that it can. These county commissions should be abolished. The fewer extortionists... the better.

Posted by AnnaWhaat on August 22, 2008 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I should find the website for this I need a wedding site !!!!
But seriously it does seem like they are holding a business. But as the last comment stated its no Charge? So that would seem to me as not a business if they are not making money off of the weddings being held there. We do not have enough parks or nice places to hold weddings. Not everyone wants to get married on the beach.........

Posted by tsetsaf on August 22, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If they are not charging guests it is not a business. I see lawsuit in the future for the county.

Posted by iam_caine on August 22, 2008 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just another minor bureaucrat, throwing her weight around to make herself look important, in conjunction with a bunch of disgruntled neighbors with nothing better to do than invade people's privacy, thinking they can dictate how others use their own private property.

Posted by k_finlay on August 22, 2008 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

My name is Kim FinlAy quoted in the above article, and I'd just like to clarify, since I was MISQUOTED as saying that there were police complaints.

The police officers that have been summoned to Villa Amodei have FOUND NO FAULT every time they have been unnecessarily called out there. There have been NO police complaints. The only harassment has been from the neighbors, who have (aside from camping out across the street and filming them every time the have a private event) reportedly trespassed, and on a separate occassion, tried to run over one of the Amodei's outside their residence with their vehicle! For these two instances police REPORTS have been filed by the Amodei's ... NOT police complaints !!??!!

Posted by k_finlay on August 22, 2008 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Would an accurate news reporter please stand up?

Posted by opns on August 22, 2008 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I for one would prefer the peace and quiet, considering where the neighbors live. I would be appalled and upset at these people having so many jam parties too. I wouldn't want my roads in this quiet enviornment exploding with cars and drunks on the road. How insensitive they are to their neighbors.

Posted by AnnaWhaat on August 22, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Did anyone read how many acres of land they owned? I am sure, or pretty sure it couldn't have been that disturbing......

Posted by Zeb35 on August 22, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ru4real...the conditional use permit application was filed January 8, 2008, not June of 2007. Check your facts. Picking up forms and notifying the county of your intentions does not qualify as an application.

The Villa Amodei website was active and weddings were BOOKED for 2008 way in advance of the application. This is confirmed by the applicants own communications. "Booking" usually means commerce is being conducted, for which a permit is required. Getting caught and attempting to make things better by giving money back does not change the nature of the business being conducted. This is not a case of the county being greedy as much as it is a case of the Amodeis seeking preferential treatment.

Posted by ru4real on August 22, 2008 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The property is a lemon ranch. Farm workers, and lemon trucks drive up that street and park in front of the neighbors homes all the time. The farm workers play loud music. The trucks are huge and noisy. They are allowed to be there 24 hours a day because this is an agricultural zone. It is not residential. The gatherings at the Amodies' are nothing in comparison. The sound engineer reported that there is no noise that travels off of the 30 acres during the gatherings. They are situated behind the Amodei's home more than 1500 feet from the nearest entrance to another property. The only distrubances have been the neighbors stopping cars, trespassing, filming and leaving litter!

Posted by ru4real on August 22, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Zeb35 they followed county instructions every step of the way. The paper trail proves it.

Posted by tbiasotti on August 22, 2008 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Kim,

I'm sorry about the misspelling of your last name. It's been corrected online, and there will be a correction in tomorrow's print edition.

I didn't mean to insinuate that the police were complaining about Villa Amodei. By "police complaints," I meant, "complaints TO the police." Those complaints did not result in any noise violations.

Again, I apologize for misspelling your name.

-- Tony Biasotti
Ventura County Star

Posted by Zeb35 on August 22, 2008 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ru4real...doesn't matter, the application was filed Jan 8, 2008, not June of 2007. There is no provisions for holding weddings or events without a conditional use permit.

Posted by barefoot on August 22, 2008 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok we know when things where filed we know what’s been going on. We no that there is no permit issued yet. That is no longer the point or the problem. We have heard this a million times.

What ever happen to The Truth Will Set You Free?

I mean give me a break. I know for a fact the Amodeis gave back all the money to these brides. They where told at the end of April to have the weddings moved after being told for months to go forward.

I was married at the Villa and the Amodei’s took no money from me at all. The land was gifted to me. I have to say what a wonderful thing to do give a wedding as a gift go Amodei’s.

I also know for a fact that the Amodei’s tried to move some of the brides and some did move but others their hearts could not bare the thought of letting these brides down. So with the good and wonderful people they are they gifted their land this summer.

I cant believe that Kim would want to penalize people for there blessing and giving hearts. I have done work over seas and given to many people even here in my own country and now you are telling me that that’s a crime.

What will be next?

Posted by k_finlay on August 22, 2008 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you Tony. Since there was no earlier reference to the nature of the police complaints, the statement was ambiguous. Thank you for clearing that up.

Posted by fratres41 on August 22, 2008 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would love to have pointed it out at the hearing yesterday but did not want to alienate the board members, but this person administrating the permit process is a typical small minded bureaucrat that is drunk with power. Our country will not be defeated from without, rather from within. This attitude of uncontrolled power pervades every segment of government.

Jerry Stone

Posted by cynstriss on August 22, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I was wondering if there is no charge for the site, does that include the catering? From what I understand, there is still money being made at these events, and that makes them commercial. If I am misinformed, and they are providing EVERYTHING for free, then the events should not be considered commercial.

Posted by fratres41 on August 22, 2008 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Another thought! To the Tash family. Why not get off the defensive and on the offense. Bring a multi million dollar damages suit against the county and see how much they are willing to defend Rodriguez then.

JS

Posted by bp1721 on August 22, 2008 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One of those neighbors video taped my face without my permission. Once I find out who she is I will have notice sent to her that I am taking legal action over her invading my privacy.

Posted by Zeb35 on August 22, 2008 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Frates41...forgetting that you are friends with the family, why do you think the requirements for the establishment of a business in this county does not apply to the Tashes? How is that an issue with the county or Kim R.? In reality, it's those who try to bend the rules and circumvent process that propigate new requirements and restrictions on all of us!

Posted by 1notblonde on August 22, 2008 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The article neglects to mention that other than Jennifer Amodei, Debbie Tash and one person who is tenant in one of the Tash's rental properties, NONE of the other speakers in their support were from the immediate area.

The Tashs and Amodeis had to recruit members of Debbie's Toastmaster group and other acquaintances from Pasadena, Simi Valley, Ventura, Oak Park etc to fill the room or speak on their behalf...where were the other local Balcom area neighbors who support the wedding events if the issues raised by those in opposition are so ridiculous and unfounded?

Posted by barefoot on August 22, 2008 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What makes it a commerical act is the buying and selling of goods between a client.
Example you decide to let someone get married at your house and you as the owener take the money and pay everyone that's the act of commerical activty.

This isn't what the Amodeis have done for me. I paid for all of my people for my event. The Amodeis did not pay for anything. Or collect any money. There for this has been know elagal activty. This is not a commerical act.

Posted by CAtruckdriver on August 22, 2008 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is this REALLY the best thing the planning commission needs to be spending their time on?? I hope someone is joking about spending 1000's on "investigating" a simple permit. This counties govt. is so screwed up it's not even funny anymore. Any you all wonder why Ventura County is one of the 4 hardest hit with sub-prime loans/fall out.. because the people with high salaries are busy gaurding the bubble gum machines in the lobby!

Posted by 1notblonde on August 22, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The article also neglected to mention a copy of an email that was placed into evidence and is now a matter record.

Debbie Tash sent an email to a neighbor providing the Website address for another new non-permitted Wedding location that just recently started having a few events in the area. This info was given so the recipient could check out what was going on there. The message then went on to say: "COUNTY SITE WHERE YOU CAN MAKE AN ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT"

So it appears to me that when it suits her purposes (like shutting down a potential competitor/other neighbor), filing an ANONYMOUS complaint with the County is ok.

Apparently, Ms. Tash is not so concerned about this person's right to do as they wish with their property or the trampling of this person's Constitutional rights by the county. In fact, she's encouraging the very actions that she and her family are ranting about.

She has no problem encouraging others to call out the County "dogs" or with the County enforcing the rules against others...Hummm...double standard? Hypocritical? Perhaps all the Constitutional rhetoric is nothing more than a smoke screen out of desperation by people who have been caught. The creators of our Constitution must be rolling in their graves at the stretch the Tashs/Amodeis are making in linking their situation to this incredibly important document.

Amodei returned money because they had NO choice and were back peddling out of a jam.... They spent more than a year preparing their start up and are operating a business...plain and simple.

They had 3 lawyers at the hearing...including one who serves as a consultant for the Wedding Event Industry...It's obvious says are acting to protect a current and future lucrative business and nothing more.

A long term friend of mine attended a wedding at Amodei recently...she was asked AT THE WEDDING to sign a petition in support of holding events there. Rather tasteless conduct at a religious ceremony in my opinion....

Neither the bride nor the groom (nor any of their family or friends) were friends or relatives of the Amodeis or the Tashs.

Ahhh truth...ahhh but the tangled webs we weave...

Posted by EileenMacEnery on August 22, 2008 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yesterday's "event" at the Ventura County Hall of Administration reminded me of the saying that:

"Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it is almost impossible to get it back in." (However, since the private property at issue in this matter is a "ranch", perhaps the better comparison should be to what comes out of the back end of a horse.)

The pile of "stuff" I refer to was a County administrator's decision to fine a permit applicant for hosting a private event, spiritual in nature, at their private, residential property, with the express permission of a County PlanningCommission Director.

Yesterday's "event" at the County Administration Building was NOT a judicial proceeding. It was a gathering of bureaucrats (the Commission) for the purpose of rejecting or approving an appeal by the applicant to an arbitrary policy decision of someone whose job is to "direct" a process based on a vague, ambiguous, overbroad and possibly unConstitutional ordinance about ancillary uses in an agricultural area.

The ONLY issue AT THAT MEETING was whether to uphold the violation and fines imposed at the "discretion" of one bureaucrat. Of course, the other bureaucrats had to back her up. If they did not, the entire permitting process, as it exists today, (and her job) would be in question.

However the other 6-1/2 hours DID raise greater issues as to the entire process of issuing permits, and the underlying ordinance itself. And, even though these issues were discussed, there was not, and could not, be any decisions AT THAT TIME on said issues.

And, as the last half-hour indicated, these bureaucrats were previously unaware of the ever-changing and totally individual criteria,policies and procedures employed by this particular individual when making making her arbitrary, subjective and selective "enforcement" decisions related to the lawful activities of the applicant for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).

Thus, what really came out of the 7 hours of unsworn "discussion" was an affirmation of the County's apparent policy (at least in this case) to rely on the sole discretion of ONE County bureaucrat to make decisions without any regard to the intent or legality of a poorly written, vague and ambiguous and perhaps obsolete ordinance, as evidenced in what appears to be, totally subjective, unwritten, and flexible policies and procedures.

Furthermore, the decision, and the entire application process it seems, is conducted without any regard to due process, private property rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to peaceably assemble.

In otherwords, without any regard to the US Constitution and the God-given rights our elected AND appointed government servants are sworn to protect.

(continued in my next comment)

Posted by EileenMacEnery on August 22, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

(comment continued)

Here is what I heard to be the previously unstated and unwritten policies on which the violation decision was made:

1. When an individual, in good faith, decides to apply for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the County of Ventura, you impliedly gave up all your Constitutional rights in regard to the activity or service which is the subject of the permit.

2. When one applies for a CUP on your own private residential property, you should IMMEDIATELY cease and desist providing that service to anyone and everyone, even friends and family, for the duration of the process.

3. When one applies for a CUP, you should also immediately cease and desist any efforts to advertise, to develop or promote your business or service, to make contracts for future business, or to use the services of anyone related to that business or industry, as that could be construed as "conducting a commercial business without a permit."

4. Also, a "violation" can be determined, not just on facts, but also on what the bureaucrat PERCEIVES as the intent and the relationship which the applicant has with past present or potential "customers"

5. Friends and family can not also be customers before, after or during the application process, and the bureaucrat has the discretion to read the mind AND heart of an applicant to determine whether a recipient of your service AT YOUR RESIDENCE is a "friend" or a "customer".

7. It is also at the whim of the bureaucrat to grant or withhold, on a day to day basis, whether you can conduct your business...allowing it one day, and withholding it the next, without cause, and can subjectively determine which applicants can or cannot be granted such permission.

8. The facts which the bureaucrat can use is also totally "discretionary", even if gathered illegally or in violation of the applicant's Constitutional rights. It does not have to be gathered by authorized County agents.

Rather, self-appointed vigilantes and confidential informants can harass and stalk the applicant, videotape and record the family, friends and acquaintances, and abuse the availability of law enforcement resources.

The fruits of the obsessive labors of these residents are then deemed by the bureaucrat as a "ringing bell" to which they must respond and act upon by "punishing" the applicant with violations and fines without due process or warning.

9. Furthermore, the applicant can have no expectation or anticipation of any kind of timeline for the process or end date. Instead, the applicant should plan on ceasing all activities, even to families and friends, for as long as the process takes, which is again, at the whim of the bureaucrat, which the County states can be not only...but YEARS.

10. Finally, there need be no damages, nor proof of damages, by virtue of the applicants alleged "violation" for the fine to be imposed.

(continued in 3rd comment)

Posted by Zeb35 on August 22, 2008 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

EileenMacEnery...Answer these questions for me...

1. Did the Amodei's establish a website and create marketing materials to advertise the availability of their property for those willing to pay for the right to hold their weddings or events at "Villa Amodei"? Doesn't this sound like a business? Ask them...if they are honest they will tell you that they want a for profit business.

2. If "yes" to number 1, then doesn't the zoning for the VA property require following the CUP application process? Do you know of another binding process that allows the neighbors a forum for voicing their support or objection?

3. Isn't the real issue here that the Amodeis jumped the gun, got caught and now are seeking support and justification for bad decisions? Does this really have anything to do with..."due process, private property rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to peaceably assemble"...

Somehow this feels like a temper tantrum...

Posted by Zeb35 on August 22, 2008 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

EileenMacEnery...Also if you wish to make a reasonable argument in defense of the Amodei's position, stop with the "friends and family". I can't believe anyone is fooled by that anymore. Prior to their CUP application they BOOKED 14 weddings for 2008, by their own admission, in writing. You book clients not friends and family.

Posted by ladydefinger on August 22, 2008 at 5:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Please, Zeb35, EileenMacEnery, 1notblonde, one neighbor or two? Get off your high horse, ladies.

Posted by ladydefinger on August 22, 2008 at 5:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My apologizes to EileenMacEnery. Her posts make sense, 1notblonde and Zeb35, you are out to lunch.

Posted by ladydefinger on August 22, 2008 at 5:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

1notblonde = Nancy Chapman

Posted by EileenMacEnery on August 22, 2008 at 5:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

(comment continued)

But, the most alarming fact that was evident yesterday was the inherent lack of understanding about the nature and intent of the permitting process, not only by the residents of Old Balcom Canyon Road, but the County itself.

A permit or license, under the law, is permission granted by a private party or government agency to do something which one would otherwise NOT have the right to do.

Thus, the question is raised as to whether or not the Amodeis needed to get a permit to have weddings, or any other event, whether for profit or not, on their property in the first place.

And, by beginning the permitting process, they did NOT, either expressly or implicitly, indicate any intention to not exercise their Constitutional right to have weddings or any other event at their residence on their private property, either before, during or after, the permitting process.

In fact, the history of the relevant ordinance indicates its intent is NOT to regulate private conduct on private property, whether commercial or otherwise. It was to encourage private property owners to use their land for events open to the public for ancillary income.

By attacking the Amodeis, these self-appointed vigilantes (who identify themselves by the misnomer "neighbors") chose, instead, to attack the intended beneficiaries of the ordinance, the owners of the agricultural land.

To further complicate matters, by fining the Amodeis, the County became complicit in this harassment, not only for punishing the Amodeis for doing something they have a Constitutional right to do WITHOUT a permit, but punishing them for conducting the very activity that the ordinance intended to promote in the first place!

However, despite the questionable necessity of a permit for non-public events on private property, commercial or private, the Amodeis, by applying for said permit, did not, either expressly or implicitly, waive their Constitutional rights.

(continued on next comment.)

Posted by EileenMacEnery on August 22, 2008 at 5:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

(comment continued)

The next step is critical when the Board of Supervisors seeks to accept or reject the recommendation of the Commission. Will the Supervisors decide to continue this blatant abuse of the ordinance and violation of Constitutional rights, or will they continue to put the County of Ventura, and its residents, at risk of lawsuits and financial damages.

In addition, this decision already has had a chilling effect on business development, which means jobs and incomes, not only for the Wedding industry, but for all businesses who are located, or might locate in Ventura County.

Thus, the implication that this is not the concern of anyone but those who live on Balcom Canyone Road, is not s decision by the County affects the entire County, not just the residents on Old Balcom only wrong, but goes against every principle that our Constitutional Republic stands for.

It is not only apropos, but desirable, that every resident of Ventura County be apprised of this situation, and be encouraged to weigh in on this matter, with the County Board of Supervisors, employees, and business owners in the County.

The deleterious effects of the frivolous complaints of a few people because they feel "inconvenienced" is already having far-reaching effects on a potentially lucrative industry in our County, and the complicity of the Planning Commission in their attack of the very landowners the ordinance was designed to help, is very disturbing.

Posted by Comments on August 22, 2008 at 5:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry Eileen but there's no way I'm going to read (and I suspect most won't) all the info you provided, even though I'm sure it's very relevant and useful. However, it's FAR too much material for a message board. There's a reason why there's a word limit :). You might want to condense your version to a few paragraphs so we all get the gist of your argument and know where you stand.

All I know of this situation is what I've here in both this article and the one published a few weeks ago. I personally feel that the Amodei's are way out of line and deserve to be fined. I also that their application is denied. People who know Jennifer talk of her as a sweet woman. I have no way of knowing that, but I can say that her response at the hearing didn't sound sweet at all. It sounded conniving, rude and "in your face." She doesn't seem to care a whit that her neighbors are being disturbed by her BUSINESS. And make no mistake, it is a business she's running and intends to run. Just because she tried to find a loophole this summer by "gifting" her property she fully intends to run a business. And, she fully intended for those weddings to paid for initially. It's only because of all this that she returned the money paid to her. Yep, the money had been paid. What a crock that they were friends. I don't suffer fools lightly and hate being taken for one even more.

It sounds as though the majority of their neighbors are disturbed by the weddings taking place there. Before a permit is issued I think both sides need to mediate to see if there are some compromises that can be made. I don't think that the Amodei's should be given a carte blanche permit to hold events whenever the heck they feel like doing so.

Posted by barefootjeremy on August 22, 2008 at 8:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Give me a break. How much more sweet and kind hearted can a person be. Jennifer Amodei let people get married for free. While other places sit back and make money. That are not permitted. You don't sound very kind or credible to say such bad things about Jennifer.

Posted by EileenMacEnery on August 22, 2008 at 8:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To Comments (and others) who can not (or will not) read my lengthy posts:

After listening to over seven hours of public comments yesterday, it is hard to be "succint" but accurate. I will try harder.

1. The intent of the ordinance is to provide additional income to property owners, like the Amodeis, and others, by permitting them to have festivals, etc. open to the public. The word "weddings" was added years later. There was no intent or attempt to regulate personal private behavior. The ordinance did not and was not intended to make private parties "illegal".

3. The intent of a permit is to "regulate" commerce and to insure public safety and health, and to give permission to do something you otherwise dont have the right to do.

4. There is NO LAW which says you cant have private parties on your property. Backyard weddings, and other events on private property NOT open to the public are protected by the Constitution, whether there is compensation or not.

5. Fines are intended to punish those who commit a crime or whose activities are in contradiction of the intent, spirit and purpose of a civil statute, or intended to harm the intended beneficiaries or violate their rights.

6. The intended beneficiaries of this ordinance are property owners such as the Amodeis.

7. If a citizen or government agency seeks to stop an otherwise legal or non-criminal activity, the remedy is to seek a civil injunction.

The only violations that I see here are those of the Bauchers, Chapman and others who are harassing the Amodeis, violating their privacy, and frustrating the lawful permit process.

If they DONT want fairs, festivals or gatherings which are OPEN TO THE PUBLIC in their community, they need to get the ordinance rescinded.

If someone doesnt want their neighbor to have private parties and gatherings on their private property which are NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, they can get a restraining order if and only if they can prove it violates THEIR Constitutional rights. If they want to make an otherwise legal activity illegal, they should speak to their legislators about changing the existing law, or amending the Constitution.

The only error that the Amodeis made was to try too hard to be considerate of their neighbors. They went over and above what the law, and the Constitution required. (If it was me I would have gotten a restraining order against them the first day they set up camp across from my driveway.)

The County officials, either out of fear, or an inflated sense of power, gave in to this gang of bullies, instead of protecting and defending the spirit and intent of the ordinance and its intended beneficiaries.

Its time for these
disgruntled "neighbors" to put down the magnifying glass (and telescopes and video cameras), and to pick up the looking glass if they want to see who is really in violation of the land use ordinance and its the legal process.

Posted by almostmarried2009 on August 22, 2008 at 9:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The County Planning Department needs to be turned into the Grand Jury....they are very selective in their prosecution...there are many other properties violating the Land entitlement process...they claim they don't have the man power, but reality is they can pick up the phone or email the other properties in question and they can find the answers. Kim Rodriguez abuses her power...There needs to be a complete clean house of the County of Ventura planning department.

Posted by hooper on August 22, 2008 at 9:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I was at the hearing and I saw no evidence from any neighbor of any sound disturbance. Yet, the Amodei's hired a sound expert. How do we know the neighbor who was bothered at 2:30 in the morning was being truthful?

Where were 40 bothered neighbors? I only saw a handful.

My neighbor's grandkids scream in their backyard and bother me all the time, yet I don't tell them to get rid of their grandkids.

How would the neighbors feel if someone violated them the way the Tashes and Amodei's have been harassed? (filming, trash, etc.) I understand it's a farming community, but even a farming community has some noise.

If the biggest complaint is one Limo making a hard turn into a driveway, I think the neighbors have way too much time on their hands.

As for noise, I saw no hard evidence of that yesterday.

Posted by JohnAlamillo on August 22, 2008 at 9:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Zeb35-
Very well said.
Bottom line is this is a 'residential' area that is disturbed by celebrations each weekend. It's not nimby, it's courtesy. The parcels, no matter how many acres, are close enough for the noise level of 200 people and a DJ or band to be heard from more than a few hundred yards.

The web site shows a beautiful home. Was it built as a residence or a clubhouse?

Posted by barefootjeremy on August 22, 2008 at 10:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry John your wrong its not a residential zone. Its a agricultural zone.

Posted by hooper on August 22, 2008 at 11:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Fratres41,
I loved your comments yesterday, the fact of what the Tashes and Amodei's have brought to the area. Great speech! Nice for a close neighbor to stand up for what you believe in.

Posted by vcsreader28 on August 23, 2008 at 12:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Does anyone have the link to the website? I'm getting married next year and need to start looking at locations.

Posted by hooper on August 23, 2008 at 1:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

google Villa Amodei, pronounced "ah-ma-day"

Posted by EileenMacEnery on August 23, 2008 at 5:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Zeb35...in answer to your 3 questions:

1. Yes, the Amodeis did, do and, in the future, want a "for profit" business. And if you read the ordinance which is the specific issue of this brouhaha, you will find that is precisely what the County intended. The Conditional Use Permit is intended to ENCOURAGE and ASSIST property owners in establishing compatible "for-profit" events on their agricultural land.

The original CUP was established tp facilitate events which were "open to the public", and potentially attended not just by hundreds, but potentially, thousands. The addition of "weddings" to the list of potential "events" was an after-thought, years later, because the growing number of existing and operating venues proved to be far more profitable to the property owner, while being smaller, quieter, and far less invasive to the community with a clientele who were "by invitation only.

2. NO, this is not a binding process, to my knowledge, and there are NO specific requirements stated prohibiting or restricting the applicant from conducting business, for profit, before the permit is issued. Nor are there any written guidelines or restrictions given to the applicant for wedding venues which specifically prohibits the applicant from conducting their business, booking weddings, having weddings, etc. PRIOR to receiving their "permit".

And YES there IS a forum for neighbors to voice their objections to the issuance of the permit...which will occur, eventually, whenever the County gets around to it. And, since evidence of past behavior, and willingness and track record of corrective action, is precisely the kind of information the Commission wants, forbidding the applicant to conduct business prior to said open forum and the issuance of the permit is not only counterproductive, but violates the intent of having the hearing.

Therefore,at this point, what has occurred has EVERYTHING to do with "due process, private property rights, freedom of religion and the right to peaceably assemble". And the only "temper tantrums" are those evidenced by the neighbors abuse of said process, which resulted in a County employee placating the tantrums by threatening the applicant with a "violation and fine" without due process of law, or any legal foundation.

Posted by JohnAlamillo on August 23, 2008 at 5:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

barefootjeremy-
Thank you. I am aware this is an agricultural zone and as such should be used for agriculture. The wedding venue is a commercial business. Shold you venture out there you will see it is also very residential.

Posted by barefoot on August 23, 2008 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is the website www.villaamodei.com

But I know they are not booking at this time.

Posted by Zeb35 on August 23, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This entire debate gets pretty tiresome...for what it is worth here is my simple minded perspective…

1. The Amodei's have the right (by zoning) to file for a conditional use permit (CUP) to operate a business, in this case a wedding/event venue, on their property. They did this on 1/8/08. They must have felt they needed the CUP to operate their business otherwise they would not have filed.

2. For whatever reason, they chose to operate the business prior to completion of the CUP process. Those potentially impacted by the granting of a CUP (in this case the neighbors) have a voice during the CUP process. Running the business prior to the completion of the CUP process denied the neighborhood this right. I would challenge anyone to visit the neighborhood during the week and then during a wedding Saturday and objectively compare the two. I think the objective observer would agree that the normal peace of this neighborhood is genuinely impacted/changed by these events. This fact and the potential impact on property values (by law, any real or potential nuisances need to be disclosed when you try to sell) is why I object to the granting of the CUP.

3. If the Amodei's truly cared about the impact on others, they would have followed the CUP process allowing the neighbors their right to support or object to the application. Maybe it is not a perfect process, but it is the process that is supposed to be followed. I don't get why they think they are better than others or above the process. They chose to “open for business” early and now must face the consequences of their own decisions as would anyone else in similar circumstances.

Given the Amodei’s actions to date, I expect that whether they get their CUP approval or not, they will do what they want, regardless. In this point I would love to be proved wrong.

Posted by ru4real on August 23, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Zeb35 at least simple minded is accurate.

Posted by ru4real on August 23, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Amodeis are of course industrious business people. They have used their property well, beautifully and in concert with the enivronment.

They are first lemon farmers in an agricultural zone. The code was written to provide farmers with access to additional income to protect the family farm in Ventura County. In the last two years the Amodei's lemon ranch has been hit with great loss due to fire, wind and freeze.

This county relies on farmers to maintain its rural atmosphere and its economy.

The neighbors complaints are in direct opposition to the rural atmosphere they claim to be protecting. If the family farmer has no other income on their property, the family farm in Ventura County will be lost.

Just picture Somis without its family farms.

Posted by Zeb35 on August 23, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ru4real...ouch!!! Great response, thoughtful, consise and well written...let me waste some time and I'll put together an appropriately worded response...

Posted by Zeb35 on August 23, 2008 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ru4real...I actually agree with the majority of what you said in your last post, except that you left out one important point. "The code was written to provide farmers with access to additional income to protect the family farm in Ventura County." This is true, but it also contains language to make sure the proposed conditional use is not to the detriment of the surrounding property owners and environment. Therein lays the rub.

Posted by ru4real on August 23, 2008 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The problem here is that the Amodeis worked with the county from the beginning. They were directed by the county as to paperwork and process. They had spent tens of thousands of dollars at county direction prior to January 2008. It is the county that has not followed process. The Amodeis could only react according to county direction. Remember Kim was out on maternity leave. When she came back she change the rules.

Posted by farmboy on August 23, 2008 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

For you people who do not understand what the zoning code means I will quote :

sec.8104-1-2 AGRICULTURAL EXCLUSIVE(A-E)

THE PURPOSE OF THIS ZONE IS TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURAL A LIMITED AND IRREPLACEABLE RESOURCE, TO PRESERVE AND MAINTAIN AGRICULTURAL AS A MAJOR INDUSTRY IN VENTURA COUNTY AND TO PROTECT THESE AREAS FROM
ENCROACHMENT OF NON RELATED USES WHICH BY THEIR NATURE,WOULD HAVE DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS UPON THE AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY.

as you can see this is not a residential area but a commercial area for agriculture which allows this type of use.

The reason that it does is because it helps the farmer that needs to supplement their income in the lean years. If you do not like it, move to a residential area where this is NOT allowed.

Posted by ru4real on August 23, 2008 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And once you move to a residential area, I'd like to see you stand in the street filming your neighbors for hours on end, or stopping visitors as they enter your neighbors home.

Posted by farmboy on August 23, 2008 at 11:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

 I see entrapment, one county official says continue on your process and if you get cought before your permit is granted a compliance agreement would bridge you over to complete your CUP.then another county official comes back from vacation and says NO NO to a compliance agreement, I changed may mind and if that hurts the amodeis tuff S they must stop all weddings and start paying fines and penelties thats the law, ITS THE LAW!!!!boy do i see a case for entrapment law suit.

Posted by shoeless_joe on August 23, 2008 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What a royal hypocrite you are, ladydefinger.

If you're going to take the step of trying to "out" anybody participating on this blog, then you should at identify yourself first.

Posted by 4justice on August 23, 2008 at 1:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am a friend of the Amodei’s and can’t take not hearing the truth any more! I am with Kim. Can an accurate reporter please stand up? Not one that is greased by the corrupt politicians that bend and mold the rules to fit them as they go so they can pick and choose whom to destroy. Did anyone hear what Jennifer said at the hearing?

The Facts:

1. Amodei invited the neighbors to a wine tasting in May 2007. Nancy Chapman (opposed neighbor who videos in front of their front entrance) stated that at the hearing. Who invites people over and tells them is it okay if I do this? Amodeis did. That is polite.

2.They started the process and were told it should only take 4 to 6 months. It’s a permit to hold special events, not a permit to build a nuclear plant! One to two years for a simple permit, what? One of the Commissioners insinuated that the Amodeis not having our permit was their fault. This is a two-sided process, so the County is largely at fault too for dragging their feet. Commissioners are obviously bureaucrats that don’t know what it takes to start a small business.

3. The neighbors complained in February 2007 (petition and all signed around that time) long before the Amodeis did anything or had any parties at all. What did they complain about. The idea of what is going to happen, not that it happened to them. They told the Amodeis, “we just don’t want it and we will do everything in our power to take them and their family down!” (NICE NEIGHBORS!) I hear Norm Blacher say that at the hearing.

4. Amodeis contacted the county they said, “Press forward, I just don’t want it is not a good enough reason.” Being that the Amodeis are in the right zone and it is an allowed use. If the permit is not issued in time they would be a allowed to enter into a compliance agreement like all the other venues have been allowed in the past which allows them to operate while in process. The Amodei pressed forward with this information.

5. Then these “kind” neighbors then try to have the Amodeis arrested and the Sergeant tells them that if they have a wedding they will arrest the Amodeis and the bride and groom on Misdemeanor charges. They tell the police call the county, speak with Keith Turner he said, “They could enter into a compliance agreement and run their business.” The Captain calls a week later after checking with the county and says they will leave them alone but come out if there are noise or traffic problems. To date there has never been any of these problems.

Posted by 4justice on August 23, 2008 at 1:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

6.Then Norm Blacher (the leader of the posse and a former employee at the County of Ventura and a politically connected neighbor) then interfere with the natural flow of the process of the permit by going to the county every week and finding reasons to delay their project. And because this neighbor is politically connected the county goes along with him. Norm, a terrible speaker must shout and speak loudly. Everyone knows the louder someone is, the more WRONG they are. Not one piece of hard evidence was brought up by any neighbor. They say, its too loud. Amodeis produce 6 police reports and 5 noise studies that say the contrary. Chapman says, I don’t care about the noise guy. Well a judge would. Neighbors got nothing, nothing and they know it so they have to speak loudly.

7. On April 5, 2008 wedding venues got turned in right before the season starting. Kim the planning director meets with them and tells them “She doesn’t care about their little weddings and if no one complains she won’t go after them.” The Amodei’s have complaints, but not valid ones since they had yet not had a party, the neighbors just didn’t like the idea and were complaining. Kim denied the compliance agreements to all the venues to operate after giving to all other venues in the past them and goes after the Amodeis while protecting the other venues. By giving the frantic mothers of the brides of other venues her personal cell phone to call her (evidence in e-mail)and tells the Amodeis frantic mother’s they can’t have their wedding at the Villa.

8. Kim then has a private meeting with neighbors 2 representatives from the DA’s office and building and safety and planning staff and assures the neighbors she will deny the Amodei’s permit because they are flagrant violators and still had their weddings when everyone else stopped.

9. In the meeting with the venues Kim explains charging for a party is the only thing that makes it illegal/commercial. At this point the Amodei’s have compiled with Kim then again she changes the rules it is now not the money but the amount of times one is allowed to use their home for a party. When the Amodeis received their first Notice of Violation they called Mr. Foy’s office and asked why they got this since it wasn’t a commercial event where there is money exchanged for the use of the land or services? Shannon his assistant said there was no violation it is a free county and you are allowed to have a party. Kim then again says it is the amount of parties. The Amodeis have had 2 to 3 parties a month not to 2 to 3 a weekend like the other venues.

Posted by 4justice on August 23, 2008 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The only REAL guilty party is the harassing neighbors that have sent helicopters to crash the private parties, sent police 3 times a night with no noise disturbance or traffic issues recorded. How embarrassed was Nancy Chapman and Joan Blacher when they were caught with their pants down because they were out there filming the Amodei pizza party on a Saturday afternoon. To their own admission they do not know what is happening from their respective hoiuse. They have to come out to the Amodei house to be affected. They tried to run Mr. Amodei over their car, have tried to have them arrested. The only ones affecting the environment are the neighbors that should mind their own business. And the police reports are for the Amodeis not the neighbors. I am glad the Amodeis and Tashs when this is over are planning a harassment suit against these individuals. This is their land neighbors, get out of your lawn chair and go home! You have NO rights here other then helping the county condition their permit. From knowing the Amodeis and their heart you could have all done that at their event they welcomed you to as friends and good neighbors. Your input is a day late and a dollar short and is no longer desired.

Lastly, the zone is the zone and the neighbors can’t change that. All the yelling Norm does to the PC or the BOS cannot change the facts that he lives in the AE Commercial zone. He says, “it’s a residential area”, but the area does not supercede the zone. Zone comes first and all the yelling won’t change that.

I think the only good news, I have heard from my friends is that 60 minutes has contacted the Amodeis and will blow the top off this corrupt situation.

Posted by 4justice on August 23, 2008 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You know what the neighbors are really mad about. You heard Joan and Norm Blacher say (and its documented) that they are all "law-biding" citizens. Then you heard Nancy Chapman say, "that there were two neighbors that were turned in for building violations." Is Nancy one of these two neighbors that has violations for buildings? YES sir, but she didn't want to mention that cause that its embarrassing to say, "these people are violators" when she herself is big ONE.

So these "perfect neighbors" have violated the law themselves by their own admission. It is now documented at the hearing. Who is the hypocrite now shoe-less joe? Pot calling the kettle black.

Posted by shoeless_joe on August 23, 2008 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If your going to go down that road of listing "violators" (which I don't believe is necessary), be sure to add your friend, Jennifer Amodei.

When she had her non-permitted hair business in her home's garage - "Salon at Villa Amodei."

Posted by hooper on August 23, 2008 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Very interesting, everyone. I can see this as a TV movie. Thanks for your factual input, 4Justice! Sounds like the neighbors didn't hear what Jennifer said, did they? She tried to obey and follow what the PC was telling her to do all along!!! What is wrong with that?

I think if someone wants to live in a place where there's no noise at any time, no tractors, etc, they might be taking reservations for the moon!!

The Amodei's are very honest, sweet people. I wouldn't mind them as neighbors!

Posted by AnnaWhaat on August 23, 2008 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Eileen I am more then willing to come and meet you and become a friend.......so I can have my daughters wedding there.

Posted by 4justice on August 23, 2008 at 2:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Shoeless,

All you neighbors that live in unpermitted GLASS houses, I suggest you all stop throwing rocks.

Posted by almostmarried2009 on August 23, 2008 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The County should treat all the properties the same....they need to stop singling out different owners in the area. The more money you have the harder it is to get through the County system. There are more properties that the County knowingly allow to operate with out permits. I have several emails that confirm my findings. They claim they don't have the enforcement to manage it... it takes about 5 minutes with either a telephone of a computer. They should fine everyone equally. They should enforce the law and make sure the other properties are shut down as well. The County is very selective in their dealings....They should all be fired and we should get a whole new planning department...remember we are paying their $140,000 plus per year salaries. It isn't just in this industry..it is wide spread..Have you tried to get a permit lately? Try it and you will see why people build and operate illegaly.

Posted by shoeless_joe on August 23, 2008 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

4justice -

Please be sure the give that CONCRETE advice to your friends.

Posted by 4justice on August 23, 2008 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jealousy sure doesn't become of you!

Posted by shoeless_joe on August 23, 2008 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LOL

Posted by ladydefinger on August 23, 2008 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

shoeless_joe = Most likely one of the Servins...

Posted by almostmarried2009 on August 23, 2008 at 2:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would love to live in a glass house...I wonder how long that it would take to get permitted?LOL

Posted by ladydefinger on August 23, 2008 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Zeb35 = John Kress I agree with you, John, the neighbors have the right to their input. I don't think they had the right to get in there and mess around with the process itself, slow down the application etc. I am referring to one neighbor in particular.

Posted by ladydefinger on August 23, 2008 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh my regrets to the Servins, Shoeless_Joe, it just occurred to me who you are. My goodness, you are sure one to point a finger.

Posted by EileenMacEnery on August 23, 2008 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Still, most of you continue to miss the point of the Conditional Use Permit...and of the "event" on August 21, 2008. That meeting was NOT a hearing, was NOT related to issuance of the CUP, and really had NOTHING TO DO with most of what you all are concerned with.

The ONLY purpose for that 7 hour long love-hate fest (depending on your point of view) was for 3 of the 5 Planning Commissioners to decide whether they were going to back Kim Rodriguez on HER "little letter" scolding the Amodeis for going forward with their events when she told them not to.

The three there decided to deny the Amodeis' reasonable request that Rodriguez's letter (which in reality has NO FORCE OF LAW behind it, but is just HER opinion and empty threat) into the round file.

This was NOT final...it now goes to the Board of Supervisors who will make the decision whether or not to put the County of Ventura (that is ALL of us, by the way...We the People) on the line and risk a full-blown Constitutional challenge, not only to Rodriguez' actions, but to the entire CUP process and Zoning law.

THAT is what the three attorneys and the Amodeis, in good faith, were pleading with the Commission to consider. Their "little weddings" are poised to take on the big bad government (David and Goliath?).

What is at risk here is, NOT only the growing wedding venue industry, but the whole idea that landowners and business owners in the County of Ventura are to be encouraged and ASSISTED by their elected and appointed servants in making a living, in developing new sources of revenue (and taxes), in encouraging employment and development in ways that are compatible with both agriculture, residential and the nature of the community.

The ranching and farm industry is declining in Ventura County...would you rather see the Amodeis press forward in another direction? ie. Build a bunch of condos, a strip mall and everything that goes with it?

Yes, the area is ZONED for agriculture...and the variance is for festivals and cultural events...an ANCILLARY use designed to prevent the loss of the agricultural nature.

The CUP process was intended to HELP AND ASSIST the Amodeis in preserving that matrix...the real enemy here are the Bauchers and Chapmans, who would rather destroy this process...and thus the matrix, in order to get their way.

The Bauchers and Chapmans are cutting off their own noses, to spite their face.

Posted by almostmarried2009 on August 23, 2008 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't worry neighbors....Kim will abuse her power and your local supervisors will stand behind her. She is a bitter woman. Yes, the system is broken and needs to be fixed. Check out the County web site and look into the Grand Jury investigations of the Planning, Building and Saftey departments. We as tax payers should demand reform.

Posted by EileenMacEnery on August 23, 2008 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The next step is the Board of Supervisors...who will decide whether to accept...the "recommendation" of the Planning Commission. Is that an open or closed proceeding? When and where is it going to occur? And, please remember, the issue is the "letter of violation and fines" written by Kim Rodriguez...the issue is NOT the CUP.

However, the bigger picture is the whole process, and the Constitutionality of the law, the procedure and the enforcement.

Also, is there a procedure for a concerned citizen to file a complaint for "breach of fiduciary duty" against a County employee?

Posted by SandandSurf on August 23, 2008 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Let’s refocus, shall we??

The majority of the points and opinions made in the comments have little influence regarding Thursday’s proceedings.

The hearing was about whether or not events were conducted on the property without the required conditional use permit.

The reality is that under the current County "conditions" and regulations, the answer is affirmative.

While everyone may agree that the semantics of the zoning ordinance need revision and the permit procedure is nothing short of HELL, that was not the debate.

Posted by farmboy on August 23, 2008 at 6:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Allegro
You are just shortsighted in making your statement. If you could see you would
have noticed that the commissioners did not understand what the heck Kim was
even talking about. So they voted in the dark. Whatever Kim said they were on
her side. One of the commissioners admitted after that she did not get it, there is justice for you. The question was not if there was an event. It was if it was commercial. And despite the evidence in front of the commission they voted with Kim to satisfy her bad decision and not get sued. Which at this point is enviable.

Posted by ladydefinger on August 23, 2008 at 6:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Allegro = Joan Blacher

Posted by hooper on August 23, 2008 at 6:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Allegro,
Yes, the point of Thursday was to determine if the Amodei's were in the wrong for holding those two weddings those two days. They did hold weddings. But I think the problem is that the Amodei's were told to "go ahead" and then get the CUP later. So I think there were a lot of mixed messages while Rodriguez was on maternity leave!!! So what are they to believe??? I believe that's what jennifer said. And I think this is going to set a precedent, so that's why it's gotten so much attention.

Posted by SandandSurf on August 23, 2008 at 6:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Four color magazine ads. Marketing Folder. Website. Legal contracts with minimum guest requirements. Hold the date deposits. Wedding planner available for brides. Visibility at local wedding shows.

Smells commercial to me.

Just because a burglar gives back the stuff he stole doesn't mean it wasn't breaking and entering. He's still a thief.

Posted by EileenMacEnery on August 23, 2008 at 7:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Allegro...and others:

The issue was NOT whether the Amodeis held an event without a permit...we ALL know they didnt have the permit...yet.

The IMMEDIATE issue on Thursday was whether or not the 3 Commissioners who were present should reject the Amodeis' request that they toss Kim Rodriguez' letter into the trash.

Rodriguez' letter indicated her intent to fine them $1,000 per incident. What the Commission did was authorize the Violation Notice to go to the Board of Supervisors for review. It is still up to the Board to approve the Violation and fine.

As Rodriguez admitted FINALLY, her basis for issuing said Notice of Violation was as follows:

Because she wanted to.

There is no requirement stated in approved policy or procedures which says that a permit applicant can not continue to have private events on their private property, while a permit request is pending.

There is not even a policy or procedure which states that someone having weddings on their PRIVATE PROPERTY must even apply for the permit.

If you were paying attention, you would have heard the statements that the word "weddings" was added to the Festival Ordinance years after the ordinance was written. If you were paying attention you would have realized that this was intended to apply to an already established COMMERCIAL venue, Hartley's.

In reality the County does not have the authority to require a permit for a private event on private property. In otherwords, the Amodeis were NOT required to apply for the permit, as long as their events were within the confines of their private property and did not spill out onto public property or their neighbors' property.

This is the big secret that the County does NOT want you to know because they want private property owners to THINK that they have to have a permit.

And, even if the Amodeis, in good faith, decided to go through the permitting process, alert their neighbors, in an effort to go over and above what they already had the RIGHT TO DO, that does NOT mean they gave up their Constitutional rights.

But, this one County employee, instead of realizing that a fiduciary duty was owed to the Amodeis, chose to join those who had no regard for the legal process, for the rule of law, or for the rights of their neighbors.

What is also interesting is that, the legal remedy which Rodriguez' chose, the $1,000 per day fine for not being in compliance by getting a permit, has nothing to do with the alleged violation.

Ms Rodriguez seems to be under the impression that being in charge of a permit process gives her the authority to be judge and jury, and make up the rules as she goes along. It does not.

Posted by ru4real on August 23, 2008 at 7:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Allegro63 when you are directed by the police to break in, it is the police who should go to jail! The Amodeis were directed by the county each step of the way. When the county changed direction, they did not care that the Amodeis had spent thousands of dollars and put themselves at risk of being sued by the brides who were booked because the county said proceed

Posted by ladydefinger on August 23, 2008 at 7:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So holding a wedding without monetary consideration is now compared to breaking and entering? Allegro63 that's just ridiculous. This wasn't a crime and how can you state it even meets the same standard. You can't unless you have one heck of a twisted point of view.

Allegro63, gee, 63, let me see...hum...Joan you are way older than that.

Posted by almostmarried2009 on August 23, 2008 at 7:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

again, Kim is just picking on the Amodeis this time...she is going one by one to each venue. The problem is that she doesn't treat each property the same. The other properties in question keep operating and they are openly booking their venues with out having the proper permits. The process to get a CUP can take over 5 years...Thats how long it took Hartleys to get into compliance....they never shut them down, they were able to do anything they wanted

Posted by farmboy on August 23, 2008 at 7:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ru4real Tell the public the whole story about Mrs.Kim she wanted to charge the Amodeis 15,000.00 per wedding weather private or commerical just so she could flex her county muscle rights. she needs to be stopped before the county gets a muscle law suite

Posted by almostmarried2009 on August 23, 2008 at 8:05 p.m.

(This thread was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by 4justice on August 23, 2008 at 8:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Your analogy "allegro" is incorrect. They wanted a business, but found out they could not have one yet, so they gave it away. That's the fact and you can't do anything about that. You probably would never do the same thing if that was your case. Its called integrity, look it up.

Amodeis scenario is they returned the money BEFORE, therefore, the crime never happened. Nice try but you are struggling to find a way to find them criminals or violators and you got nothing. Neither does the County, but the County does not want to look incompetent that they can't control their citizens.

Sorry but you all got nothing but words and they have everything documented and hard evidence and facts, paperwork, etc.

You guys are grasping at air and fabricating anything but it will fall apart under scrutiny.

Posted by ru4real on August 23, 2008 at 9:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is very correct that they gave it away because they wanted to do the right thing. It was not to deceive. It was not a statement of we are not commercial. It was how do we make this right. How do we protect the brides, follow the county's rules and move forward in the permit process. It was not trickery. It is the county that is playing games.

In my opinion, Blacher has connections and has pulled strings. He worked for the county. He is currently on the board of county programs. It is an abuse of power, and abuse of power is illegal. Far more illegal than working with the county to get your permit. Abuse of power will put you in prison.

Every time Blacher walked in the Kim's office the Amodeis got a bill. They have had to pay for every minute the county spent with Blacher. And Blacher was granted access constantly, while the Amodei's phone calls were not returned by the very county that was billing them. As if the Amodeis have tons of money to throw away for nothing.

Posted by barefoot on August 23, 2008 at 10:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree

Posted by EileenMacEnery on August 23, 2008 at 10:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ALLEGRO63...please answer these questions:

Where in the Conditional Use Permit Application, and underlying ordinance, does it say that you must apply for the CUP in order to operate a business in your home, and in particular to have parties or other events at your home which are NOT open to the public? Please cite the applicable law, statute or ordinance.

Where in the Conditional Use Permit application does it state that the applicant must cease operating their business while the application is pending?

Where in the Conditional Use Permit application does it state that the Planning Commission has the authority to fine an applicant for operating their business while the application is pending?

Unless and until you, or someone, shows me the specific law which REQUIRED (not offered) a CUP for the Amodeis to have weddings on their property, for profit or not for profit, I will maintain that this entire process, and everything that has resulted from it, is a violation of their Constitutional rights, resulting in harassment, abuse of process and legal liability for ALL residents of Ventura County, not just the ones on Balcom Canyon Road.

Posted by ru4real on August 23, 2008 at 11:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree. This is a county wide issue. It impacts every farmer and every wedding venue in the county. It impacts Ventura County's economy at a time when the people in this county can't afford to lose the tax income from successful businesses.

It is not about anyone's little weddings. It is about Ventura County's quality of life and economy.

Posted by 4justice on August 23, 2008 at 11:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Zeb35,
Here's your excerpt. "This is true, but it also contains language to make sure the proposed conditional use is not to the detriment of the surrounding property owners and environment. Therein lays the rub."

Here's my response:
Neighbors gotta prove it. That its a detriment to them. Once again they have "words" and the Amodeis have third party documentation (Cops, noise reports, more cops and more cops). Who will the ultimate Judges believe? Grump old people who shout at them or concrete studies and the County's own police officers. That is what the Amodeis already have and submitted.

Therein lays the extra rub right back at ya!!!

Posted by 4justice on August 24, 2008 at 12:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey cynstriss,
Your excerpt: I was wondering if there is no charge for the site, does that include the catering? From what I understand, there is still money being made at these events, and that makes them commercial. If I am misinformed, and they are providing EVERYTHING for free, then the events should not be considered commercial.

Here's your answer. If you have a party at your house and you order the food and drinks and pay the restaurant to deliver it; is this a commercial activity? Of course not! If the Amodeis chose to pay every single vendor out, its still NOT a commercial activity.

Its not the paying out, its when they take MONEY IN! Vendors can be paid according to Ms. Rodriguez which she writes an email to a vendor asking that very question. She states that "its okay" for vendors to be paid even if they work a venue that is not permitted. By the way, this email that Kim states this is submitted and documented now.

Is your child's b-day party illegal if you order food and have it delivered or catered, etc. What if you had 15 children like some people that i know. According to Kim its not customary for a home to have that many parties in a given year. So what is the number that is acceptable for a average person to have at their house. There is not a code on the planet that has that number in it cause its all made up.

Posted by SandandSurf on August 24, 2008 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Four color magazine ads. Marketing Folder. Website. Legal contracts with minimum guest requirements. Hold the date deposits. Wedding planner available for brides. Visibility at local wedding shows.

Smells commercial to me.

Just because a burglar gives back the stuff he stole doesn't mean it wasn't breaking and entering. He's still a thief.

Posted by tathiba1 on August 24, 2008 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

4justice are you for real? Who has blow out parties like a wedding for every child's birthday?
No one has the right to come in and try and change a neighborhood to suit them. The owners bought this home in an area that did not have loud parties, and tons of traffic.
Why do they think that everyone should just roll over and deal with the inconsiderate behavior of them?
This is an area where trees, and horses are the businesses of choice. It is not an area that has big trucks, lots of traffic, bright lights, or even able to hear traffic noise for that matter.
People bought in this area for the peace and quiet. The rural lifestyle.
Not the fact that a "club house" would be right next door to them in the future.
People who are saying that it is no big deal, I bet are just as rude as this family who is running this business.
This really just comes down to homeowners who don't care about anyone else.
If I read correctly, the "owners" of the house do not even live there. I wonder how they would like it if they had the same such rude neighbors where they live?

Posted by barefoot on August 24, 2008 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Tathiba1

You don’t even know what your talking about.

Posted by farmboy on August 24, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I reread the paper article by TONY BIASOTTI and i see that Tony did not understand how it all evolved from the beginning.let me explain how i see it.
1.The focus is been on, are the wedding commercial or noncommercial for the reason of determining legality. This was a way of toning down the pressure and trying to make it work. but the facts are smothered by all this smoke.
Here is the real truth, the amodeis wanted to start a small business in there backyard to supplement there income.So they applied for a CUP, and was told that it was a 4 to 6 month process, this was back in 2007. they proceeded as did other venues doing the same thing. Then they got wind that the neighbors were not happy. So Mrs. amodei went to the county to ask for direction and was told to continue forward and she could get a compliance agreement. Well here is where the problem begins she continues, one county official says go (green lite) and then another county official says stop (red lite) and stop all weddings, and if you have tried to stop a wedding it becomes very complicated and threats of law suites start coming up now what do you do?

Posted by barefoot on August 24, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dear Allegro63,

Why do you keep repeating yourself?

You seem like a very mean person. Give me a break the Amodei’s gifted there house, to people when did this become a crime. I feel sorry for you that you have such a hard time seeing the good in people.

The Amodei’s are good wonderful, beautiful people.

Posted by 4justice on August 24, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I completely agree with barefoot. Tathiba1 has no clue. I hear some people don't like the horses and all the trailers and their smells, flys and everything that goes with horses. So lets ban them now.

I think we can get a petition to have anyone that has a horse ranch or is in the business of making money off horses in any way, banned from the area. We just don't like them, thats a good enough reason for me.

Posted by farmboy on August 24, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tathibai
I second Barefoots comets

YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!!!

Posted by 4justice on August 24, 2008 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'd like to make a simple analogy. It may seem a bit crude, but its a perfect analogy that makes the distinction between commercial activity and non-commercial activity. Between illegal and legal.

A prostitute can engage her services with three different people. Two of them she charges (illegal), but one person is a freebee and simply an act between two consenting adults. No monetary gain for this one person.

Which one should she be found guilty of a crime/violation for? According to the County she is guilty because her title is she's a prostitute and markets her services, therefore, all the acts she engages in are a crime even if she is doing that with her boyfriend for of course no charge.

If she decides one month everybody she meets she is giving it for free and its all consenting adults, how is that illegal?

Posted by farmboy on August 24, 2008 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OPNS
Are you well or what is wrong with your perception?

Posted by EileenMacEnery on August 24, 2008 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I know I keep repeating myself...but here I go again!!!!

Traffic, money exchanging hands, vendors getting paid for services, weddings, birthday parties, once a year or one a day...

NONE OF THIS IS RELEVANT TO THE LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVED!!!!!!!!!!

The relevant LEGAL issues are these:

1. Do the Amodeis have the RIGHT to have weddings, birthday parties, pizza parties, TGIF parties, political gatherings, etc etc etc on their PRIVATE PROPERTY, in their backyard, gardens, with vehicles parked on their property...

Answer: YES they have the RIGHT!!!

2. Do the Amodeis have the RIGHT to be compensated for these events, either in money or other form of consideration...

Answer: YES, they have the RIGHT!!!

3. Are the Amodeis (or any other property owner whether in an agricultural, commercial or residential area REQUIRED to get a permit to have a PRIVATE PARTY on their PRIVATE PROPERTY, which is NOT open to the public??

Answer: NO, the are NOT required to get a permit (permission to do something they already have the RIGHT to do)

4. Do the Amodeis have the RIGHT to have a business, advertise, set up websites, make contracts, etc etc etc, without interference from their neighbors, the County of Ventura, or other individuals, on their PRIVATE PROPERTY?

ANSWER: YES, the have the RIGHT

5. If the Amodeis, in a spirit of good faith and cooperation with their neighbors and the County, decide to obtain a permit (which they are NOT required to), have the Amodeis waived their Constitutionally protected rights to do what they dont need permission to do....

Answer: NO, they did not waive their rights.

6. Do the Amodeis have the RIGHT to expect the County officials (who are public SERVANTS) to cooperate with them in order to expedite and encourage their business venture, conducted on their private property?

Answer: YES, not only do the Amodeis have that RIGHT to expect the county to expedite the process which they have chosen to participate in, they also have the right to expect the County to protect them (the Amodeis) from outside interference, harassment and efforts of others to frustrate the legal operation of their business.

7. Do the Amodeis have the RIGHT to conduct their business without a permit, or to even withdraw from the permit process, at any time?

Answer: YES, not only do the Amodeis have that right, but they have the RIGHT to sue the County, and anyone else, who deliberately or even negligently, interferes with their Constitutional rights.

Posted by EileenMacEnery on August 24, 2008 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To: Joan Blaucher....

I repeat: The Amodeis (or any other resident) do NOT need a permit (or your permission or approval) to have a commercial venture on their property as long as the activity involved is NOT inherently dangerous (ie a nuclear power plant) and is not open to the public.

Why do you keep on putting your foot in your mouth by bringing up those totally irrelevant facts?

Are you planning on opening a shoestore?

Posted by SandandSurf on August 24, 2008 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Regarding the discussions about the constitutional rights of the CUP applicant to operate or continue a business or special land use while the application is in process (that there is no language in the application to determine otherwise) - -

A CUP allows a city or county to consider special uses which may be essential or desirable to a particular community, but which are not allowed as a matter of right within a zoning district, through a public hearing process. An integral part of this application is meeting a general welfare standard and a nuisance standard, and public participation at every step of the CUP process is recognized as an important part of the application.

Is there language that the applicant must cease operations while theapplication is pending? I do not know. But if the argument is going to be that the applicant has a constitutional right to continue, then the immediate community - who is also a part of the CUP process - also has a constitutional right to petition that the business or special land use cease until all requirements are addressed and approved.

It would seem to me as a Joe Schmoe citizen that the business or special land use should not even begin until all determinations are addressed (including public participation), and the CUP is approved.

Posted by ladydefinger on August 24, 2008 at 3:48