The Board of Supervisors considered two planning appeals with opposite outcomes: a Cayucas coastal development case was approved, and a North County vacation‑rental appeal was upheld and the permit denied.

Cayucas residence (item 32)
- Background: Suzanne and Jimmy Heskett sought a minor use permit and coastal development permit to construct a single‑family residence; an adjacent neighbor, Gretchen Friedman, appealed citing private civil litigation and asserted encroachments on her property. The court had issued a stipulated preliminary injunction preserving the status quo regarding encroachments while litigation proceeds.
- Staff analysis and board decision: County staff and the planning hearing officer found the application complies with coastal policies and that the private civil dispute did not legally bar processing the land‑use permit because the injunction preserves encroachments and the proposed project as conditioned would not disturb them. The Board upheld the hearing officer’s approval and certified a Class 3 categorical exemption under CEQA.

Adelaide / Willow Creek vacation rental (item 33)
- Background: An applicant requested approval to use a residence as a short‑term vacation rental and sought a location standard modification to place the rental approximately 215 feet from an existing permitted vacation rental (the code requires 1,500 feet separation in the Adelaide/Willow Creek area unless modified). Neighbor Gregory Reitinger appealed, citing noise, traffic over a private easement across his property, lack of vegetation or topography buffer and inconsistency with prior approvals.
- Staff analysis: Planning staff and the hearing officer initially approved the minor use permit with conditions (vehicle limits, occupancy limits and noise standards). Staff said the site was at the edge of the vacation‑rental boundary and that intervening vegetation and topography and operational conditions justified a modification under the minor use permit findings.
- Board decision: After deliberation, the Board concluded the justification for the large deviation from the 1,500‑foot spacing standard was insufficient for this site (the approved exceptions elsewhere relied on much greater topographic or vegetative buffering). The Board upheld the appeal and denied the short‑term rental permit; the vote was 4–1 to uphold the appeal.

Why it matters: The two actions illustrate how the Board applies coastal and local land‑use standards: a private civil dispute does not necessarily prevent land‑use processing if a court order preserves the status quo, while substantial deviations from a land‑use spacing standard require site‑specific, objective justification.

Next steps: The Cayucas applicant may pursue permits and follow standard building permit timelines (the county noted permits have a specified effective period and extension options). For the Adelaide decision, the applicant may seek to revise the project or pursue remedies through the permit processes or the courts.