Rural Business Owners Battle Menifee Officials on Use Permits

Jack McGrath, who has operated an auto repair shop in Menifee for nearly 40 years, says he was told he would never again need a conditional use permit.
In some ways, Menifee could be described as the extreme example of the inherent struggles present when the old meets the new.

Rural charm? Sure, we want that -- some more than others. Modern housing and business development? Yes, we want to grow; we're just not sure how much.

Before 2008, Riverside County told us what to do. Since then, the City of Menifee has told us what to do. But wait; the city folks' hands are tied in some cases because of pre-existing County action that can't be undone.

We have farmers. We have soccer moms. We have bumpy dirt roads. We have crowded, narrow freeway overpasses.

And in the middle of all this, you have situations like the one pitting J & A McGrath Auto against City Hall.

OK, so it's not really McGrath vs. City of Menifee. This isn't a boxing match, or even a court battle. But it does show what can happen when Menifee's old guard meets the constantly evolving governmental structure of one of the county's newest and fastest growing cities.

Jack McGrath opened his auto repair business in what was then unincorporated Menifee in 1976. A third-generation member of a family that has lived in the Menifee Valley since the 1930s, McGrath takes pride in his belief that J & A McGrath Auto is the oldest continuously family operated business in Menifee, if not all of Riverside County.

But today, McGrath and his wife Ann say they are being wrapped up in red tape by the City of Menifee, which has notified them that they must pay thousands of dollars in order to have a current conditional use permit and make any improvements the city code enforcement department deems necessary.

City council member Tom Fuhrman, who represents the district in which McGrath Auto is located, estimates that as many as 300 small businesses in Menifee's rural area could face code violations and fees because of codes that were not enforced during the transition period from county to city jurisdiction.

Scott Mann

City officials say that while they are respectful of the status of longtime business owners, they are simply upholding the laws that apply concerning zoning ordinances, business licenses and building permits.

"Tom Fuhrman and I are very supportive of the rural business owners," Mayor Scott Mann said. "If possible, there needs to be a transition phase in all this. The McGraths are a stalwart family in this area. There's no need for City Hall and the McGraths to be fighting.

"But at the same time, our code enforcement department is required to uphold the law. We want to work with local businesses, but if a business changes or expands in any way, they must re-apply for a permit. We need to find a happy medium."

That may be easier said than done.

According to McGrath, he did purchase a conditional use permit from the county when he first opened his business in the 1970s. Years later, he renewed it as required. But more than 10 years ago, he said, the county changed the zoning ordinance covering the stretch of Murrieta Road where his business stands. The zoning was changed from "rural residential" to "scenic commercial highway."

McGrath said he was told by then-County Supervisor Kay Ceniceros that he was no longer required to have a conditional use permit for his property. Everything was peaceful after that, with McGrath continuing to operate his business on a small piece of land at the corner of Murrieta Road and Corson Avenue. In 2008, Menifee became a city and took over code enforcement from the county. Then came the first letter, dated March 25, 2012.

In that letter from Lisa Gordon, senior planner for the City of Menifee, McGrath was informed that a check of his records indicated two previous CUPs had expired and that he must apply for a new permit at a cost of $4,791.96. That fee would only begin a process in which city officials would inspect his business and determine what improvements must be made to his decades-old business. The cost of compliance could end up being much more.

"I said, 'What the hell are you talking about? I've been in business here 39 years,' " McGrath said Tuesday as he sat in his office. "They said the CUP expired under Riverside County, but now the city has code enforcement. I would have never known if I hadn't received that letter.

"I told them I was told years ago by Kay Ceniceros that I no longer needed a permit. They said, 'Do you have that in writing?' No, I don't. They were just making the change, and I took her at her word. Nothing was said about it until this letter."



Tom Fuhrman

It's difficult to determine whether these older businesses made significant changes that required new permits or exactly how much confusion there was during the transition from county to city jurisdiction. Another small business owner in the same rural area -- Troy Helton of Helton Hay & Feed on Scott Road -- also received a letter from the city requiring new permits and fees, according to Fuhrman.

Helton did not return a phone call seeking comment.

"These businesses are coming to the attention of the city through the business license registration program," said Carmen Cave, City of Menifee commmunity development director. "When a business applies for a license, the city checks to see that they are in compliance with all codes and permit requirements.

"In some cases, no proper permits were applied for or issued. In other instances, the permits have expired. Each time a letter goes out from the City, we explain a way that the business can come into compliance with the law so that they can decide how and when to apply for permits, and what kinds of applications they will be required to complete."

McGrath says if extensive improvements were required to make him compliant, the cost could put him out of business after almost 40 years.

"If they require us to put in curbside, sidewalks, gutters, things like that, it could soon be $100,000," McGrath said. "That would bankrupt us.

"If they have it for anyone, I would think there would be a grandfather clause for us. You know, they could say, 'You're OK, Jack. You are Menifee.' But when I talked to Lisa (Gordon) three weeks ago, she said there is no other avenue I can take."

Many business owners in the local rural area such as Jack McGrath have received requests for compliance from the city.




14 Comments:

  1. Leave old Menifee alone..There should be a grandfather clause for these old businesses..Not everyone likes the new Menifee and it shouldn't ruin someones life..Give these old businesses a break to keep them open..They are the charm of Menifee...Shame on you

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly, I've lived here for 24 years and this new Menifee is cold, impersonal, and filled with corporate greed. It used to be a quaint place with charm, now it's a congested mess. McGrath is classic Menifee, cut him a break! I miss the old Menifee, the little town I grew up in, this place is becoming a zoo!

      Delete
  2. Simple solution: Grandfather clause that allows the existing owners to continue their operations without hassle or harassment or new RULES, not even zoning or safety or signage....PERIOD.

    I'm shocked that the city council, who fought so hard to BECOME a city, especially Scott and Tom have not presented a much needed Grandfather clause to PROTECT these existing businesses.

    All politics are local! The city exists to PROTECT the rights of the people, not to bully them into new compliance rules that you create or prioritize to enforce. We are NOT a democracy of BULLIES, just because there are MORE suburban rooftops than rural fields.

    If a business is the LAST holdout without sidewalks and ADA compliance or paved parking and all around him a city crops up...... SO BE IT. We all came to Menifee....already knowing that.

    It's the government's JOB to protect the individuals AND give some RESPECT to those who have managed to live and work here without benefit of government assistance. SHAME on you!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Growing pains are difficult in everday life of people and cities. Grandfather clauses are made for this situation. Sort of like going to the dentist and the Doc saying "your teeth are fine but your gums gotta go". Don't put an established, well run business in financial jeopardy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well Jack is right the 'new' Menifee is winning out over the old, the new City Council cares very little about the older Menifee, they just care about what the developers can offer them for the newer building going on. I have seen and heard many things with the newest council and have no respect for them at all, all they see is ways to get treated better by the outsiders or the newer residents living in the newser areas.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In the future, lets continue to establish commercial areas with the proper 'written' code enforcement/license etc so the small businesses know exactly what to expect. Am I reading this correct, the city changed the 'name' from residential to now commercial scenic? I'd love to know who did this, what dept, based on what? And, was this voted on, or Joe Blow sitting in the license dept decided on his/her own to now rename the street...is this right? So, aren't all businesses NOT in the new commercial coded areas going to be renamed after some some insect, or extinct worm to be charged a bigger fee? Menifee appears to be doing everything they can to keep small businesses out of Menifee, why? If I were Mr. McGrath I'd look into who changed the name that drove the price up on his business, and who gave the okay to do this.

    ReplyDelete
  6. As the city increases it's retail sales tax revenue, they will continue to bring in new resources like code enforcement, fire department inspections, things that the county had ignored for years. Is it compliance or greed? Is it a liability on the City if they do not bring business up to code. Maybe the City should sue the county for failing to enforce Code prior to incorporation and use the money to assist those business that are in need of improvements to be code compliant. Business owners who improved as they went are in compliance already. These new resources like code enforcement have to justify their existance and with the City's help they are digging and researching to find ways to generate revenue. Where do we draw the line between Liability/Compliance and Greed?

    Anonymous

    ReplyDelete
  7. Let’s go after businesses that actually produce revenue for the City, but do nothing to those people who concrete their front yards and turn them into parking lots. Or who have people living in RVs parked on the side of their house. Typical actions of a City, drive out legitimate business but allow trash to build up.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sorry, but you need to be in compliance with the law. Who cares if he has been here 39 years. If you can't follow the current building, health and safety codes, then it's time to shut him down! If I have to follow the law, so does he.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you miss the part about changing the zoning laws without notification?

      Let's pass a law that said anonymous posts are now subject to $5.00 posting fee, as of Jan 1, 2013....can I look up your IP address and send you the bill. Is that how it should work?

      When he built his business he was in compliance. Seems that retrofits should only be required when he sells since his liability carrier didn't require them for continued coverage either.

      We have cars in California built before the EPA requirements and we determine a price point and age point where they do NOT have to be retrofitted to comply. We tend to cherish those cars as classic. It isn't a new concept and it's the right thing to do.

      FIRST DO NO HARM

      Delete
    2. Just because his business was in compliance in 1973, does not mean he meets the safety standards today. As an example, 40 years ago, a lot of things that were considered ok regarding haz mat disposal would be a felony today.

      Delete
    3. Who said we're even talking about safety matters? Don't use the "safety" hot button to distract from the real problem being discussed here, which is that there are many great long-time-established little businesses that have a long history of being a great service to their long-time customers .. that are now in danger of being put out of business just because someone decided to change the codes.

      I know a small store owner who has been in business years before Menifee became a city. He's now in jeopardy of losing his business, .. and most of the compliance issues that are going to cost him a small fortune ( or put him out of business ) have NOTHING to do with safety. They're things like: You need to have x number of marked parking spaces with sidewalks adjacent to end parking spaces; you need to have x number of square feet of landscaping for every so many square feet of parking lot; you need to have a 5-foot wide planter, with shrubbery, around almost the entire perimeter. Besides the significant construction costs for these nice but unnecessary changes, the cost of newly required permits and fees are many thousands of dollars more!

      Hundreds of local residents are upset at the possibility of this important store being shut down, which has become a valuable asset to our area. There aren't any complaints from residents about the way his store is now.

      For new businesses? Fine; design the codes to create the vision that Menifee has for itself. But to jeopardize established businesses by changing the rules on people who have already invested heavily in their building, equipment and inventory and whatever and have worked hard to build their little dream and serve their long-time customers is an abuse to those who were already established and operating under the old rules.

      Society doesn't even prosecute criminals according to laws established after the date that they committed their crimes. You would think it would be an easy concept to understand that people who calculated the costs and risks of business under the old rules should not be required to now comply with new rules .. unless they're moving ahead to expand their original business beyond it's already established scope.

      Richard

      Delete
  9. to 2:47pm, but, ask yourself this, does a code enforcement officer have the authority to decide to 'change' a name of a street just to 'generate' more revenue? Who decides on what street, or business is the next to be charged? The county should have had 'areas' already set up where one could throw up a business some 40 years ago and have something in writing. Why do I 'feel' they 'do' have something in writing regarding this, and not just verbal. I'd be down at the county offices looking this stuff up if I owned a business from 40 years ago. I hope in the near future we keep our commercial businesses our of residential areas. We as a new city really need to start establishing what we want our City to start looking like, not Hodge podge all over the place As for scenic Murrieta when exactly is this going to be established, are they going to be pull out places to film, or take pictures, rest areas to look at the mountains?

    ReplyDelete
  10. read an interesting case, somewhat similar
    Goat Hill Tavern v. City of Costa Mesa (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th
    and

    ReplyDelete

Menifee 24/7 welcomes comments from readers in response to posts on our website and on our Facebook page. Comments on our website must be submitted through a Google account with the user's full name. No anonymous comments are allowed. On both the website and our Facebook page, use of profanity, personal attacks, statement as fact of things that have not been substantiated, or statements of a generally offensive tone are prohibited.

Loading