My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SU0002354
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
B
>
BOWMAN
>
1672
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
UP-92-31
>
SU0002354
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/16/2020 11:57:47 AM
Creation date
9/4/2019 10:32:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
RECORD_ID
SU0002354
PE
2626
FACILITY_NAME
UP-92-31
STREET_NUMBER
1672
Direction
W
STREET_NAME
BOWMAN
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
FRENCH CAMP
ENTERED_DATE
10/26/2001 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
1672 W BOWMAN RD
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\gmartinez
Supplemental fields
FilePath
\MIGRATIONS\B\BOWMAN\1672\UP-92-31\SU0002354\APPL.PDF \MIGRATIONS\B\BOWMAN\1672\UP-92-31\SU0002354\CDD OK.PDF \MIGRATIONS\B\BOWMAN\1672\UP-92-31\SU0002354\EH COND.PDF \MIGRATIONS\B\BOWMAN\1672\UP-92-31\SU0002354\EH PERM.PDF
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
101
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
March 20, 1993 <br /> Richard Larrouy, Associate Planer MAR 2 3 1993 <br /> San Joaquin County ` <br /> Department of Planning and Building Inspection COMMUN11( DULLUN O f DER <br /> 1810 East Hazelton Avenue, Stockton, Ca. 95205 PLANNING DIMON <br /> rt. <br /> Dear Mr. Larrouy, <br /> I am writing to object to the ' building addition being constructed by Jim <br /> Silveria on the South side of his building located at 1672 W. Bowman Rd_ , <br /> French Camp, Ca. 95231 . Mr. Silveria's property is adjacent to and north of my <br /> t <br /> property, The Changing Tides Resort, located at 1626 W_, Bowman_Rd.. <br /> My response to this application is late because I did not get a copy of the <br /> iPer our discussion on Thursday, March 18, 1993 you <br /> notice of public hearing. <br /> have given me until Wednesday, March 24, 1993 in order to respond. artrment <br /> t this will be included in the information considered by the Planning Dep <br /> and the Planning commission. On <br /> First, I will point out that Mr. Silveria has falsified his application. <br /> the. map submitted with his- appl ication he ,represents an area South.of.- his <br /> building as property attached to and part of his property. This area shows a <br /> number of parking -spaces numbered 1 through 18. That property is in fact my <br /> Mr. Silveria does, <br /> oes have an easement within the area shown, however, <br /> property. <br /> it is only for .. the. .purpose. .of,. -... .driving, stopping,.. turning, and loading <br /> described easement) :.:. , ' without <br /> vehicles - over,. along " and` upon the ( The application <br /> r: interference to other tenants." (Legal description attached) : <br /> should be denied. on-- the - basis that .it` has beenfalsified if.for-no other <br /> reason. _ <br /> The easement has been a problem ever since I purchased- my property in January <br /> of 1992. Mr. Silveria has a gate giving him access from his property to the <br /> E easement, however, he keep that gate locked and refuses to open it to allow <br /> proper access from his property to the easement area. Delivery trucks, his <br /> i employees and his customers continually drive in and out of my driveway to get <br /> ! to the loading dock. They speed in and out, park and leave their vehicles in <br /> r the easement and trucks have torn- down overhead telephone wires. They p <br /> ark the easement and refuse to move their vehicles when asked, which takes turning <br /> . stomers and interferes with my <br /> and parking spaces away from me and my cu <br /> business. <br /> The property line between Mr. Silveria's property and my property .is actually <br /> 10' South of, and runs parallel to, the South side of Mr. Silveria's main brick <br /> building. The addition he has already constructed, withouta permit, appears <br /> ' within 1 foot of that property line and the roof overhang appears to be on the <br /> property line. I object to this construction for a number of reasons: <br /> The new construction has been placed upon a former loading dock.. It does <br /> 1 not appear to have a legal foundation for a building. <br /> The addition is constructed of wood siding and is not fir� resisstant as I <br /> believe is required of any building that close to the property <br /> i <br /> t- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.