My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SU0001013
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
H
>
HELEN
>
8421
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
MS-92-155
>
SU0001013
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/26/2020 6:12:14 PM
Creation date
9/5/2019 11:09:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
RECORD_ID
SU0001013
PE
2622
FACILITY_NAME
MS-92-155
STREET_NUMBER
8421
Direction
N
STREET_NAME
HELEN
STREET_TYPE
LN
City
STOCKTON
ENTERED_DATE
10/10/2001 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
8421 N HELEN LN
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\wng
Supplemental fields
FilePath
\MIGRATIONS\H\HELEN\8421\MS-92-155_VR-92-02\SU0001013\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.
/
87
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
Joe Cote//i 6 Sons <br /> 9392N.HILDRETH LANE <br /> STOCKTON,CALIFORNIA 95212 <br /> February 18, 1992 <br /> Loree Goold <br /> San Joaquin Planning Division <br /> 1810 East Hazelton Ave. - __ <br /> Stockton, Ca. % = ' 1g 0'_ <br /> - - <br /> 95205 <br /> SUBJECT: Application No (S) : VR-92-2 <br /> Dear Loree Goold, <br /> We farm 75 acres of land within a few hundred yards of the above pro- <br /> posed variance. As you may know the little area in which the variance <br /> is proposed is completely surrounded by extremely intense horticultural <br /> agriculture which requires a maximum range of farming activities. Thus <br /> the reasoning for the 40 acre minimum which is the zoning of the land in <br /> question. A variance allowing a less than seven tenths of an acre is <br /> certainly not congruous with farming activities directly adjacent to the <br /> proposed variance. <br /> I do not know who is proposing this variance, however, with the in- <br /> formation I have I must assume the variance has nothing to do with familial <br /> hardship. Therefore, I assume it is being done for financial gain. The <br /> variance applicant knew that the zone was greater than 6.2 acres when pur- <br /> chasing the property. Therefore, for the above reasons, we strongly oppose <br /> further subdivision of this property. <br /> However, if it is deceided to allow this variance, we would have a <br /> very good case for asking that our 75 acres be divided into 3/4 acre lots <br /> as would every other landowner in the vacinity of this subdivision. <br /> Thank you for your consideration. <br /> *. e <br /> AJG/ds <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.