Laserfiche WebLink
12895 N Lower Sacramento Rd. FEg 2 ZOQ4 <br /> Lodi, Ca. Coflimuflity, UVVVIU <br /> pruerKUept <br /> Reg: proposed construction of Islamic church <br /> Feb: 9, 2004 <br /> Dear Planning Commission, <br /> Myself and my family live at 12895 N Lower Sac. Rd. in Lodi, directlyacross the street <br /> from the proposed construction site and where Mr. Khan has plans to build an#Islamic <br /> Center. My family and 1 are strongly opposedghis construction. There are several <br /> reasons, and they are as follows; <br /> I. Lower Sacramento Rd. already is an extremely busy street- it serves as a highway <br /> between Stockton and Lodi, and due to this, traffic is congested at several times of <br /> the day. Many times, it is difficult to pull out of our own driveway because <br /> oncoming traffic is so intense. The Islamic center will only add to the corlestion, <br /> and especially because religious worship is just about a daily practice and because <br /> of the sheer member sizc(400 members) of that particular congregation. I fear that <br /> because of these various factors there will be an undeniable and sigiificant <br /> increase in traffic. <br /> 2_ A large religious church will be an eyesore for our small rural community and will <br /> only result in lowering our property values.The value of my property and the way <br /> our neighbors property have an impact on us is important to us. When we decided <br /> to build our house,we did so because there were primarily ranchettes on all of the <br /> properties that exist on Lower Sac. Rd., between Harney and Armstrong. <br /> Ranclrettes have a strong resale value, and in today's real estate market, a desirable <br /> assct. A large religious eyesore structure will have an adverse economical impact <br /> on all of our surrounding properties. <br /> 3- in regards to property zones, we are not so sure that such a large construction <br /> project of this magnitude is appropriate and/or in compliance to this type of <br /> agricultural zoning. <br /> To conclude, we strongly object to this proposed construction primarily for the <br /> reasons stated above and because we do not believe it is in the best interest for the <br /> colnnnunity and definitely not for ourselves. <br /> Sincerely, <br />