My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SU0013441
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
C
>
COUNTYWIDE
>
0
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
TA-93-6
>
SU0013441
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2020 8:44:19 AM
Creation date
6/12/2020 11:26:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
RECORD_ID
SU0013441
PE
2600
FACILITY_NAME
TA-93-6
STREET_NUMBER
0
STREET_NAME
COUNTYWIDE
ENTERED_DATE
6/10/2020 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
0 COUNTYWIDE
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
005
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\gmartinez
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
106
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
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY <br /> xa�•�o <br /> r y COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT <br /> 1810 E.HAZELTON AVE..STOCKTON,CA 952058232 <br /> ��GiaO"pier PHONE:2091468-3120 Fax:2091468.3163 <br /> September 27, 1994 <br /> Board of Supervisors <br /> Courthouse <br /> Stockton, CA 95202 <br /> Dear Board Members: <br /> APPEAL BY WILLIAM AND ANN POTTER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL <br /> OF VARIANCE APPLICATION NO. VR-94-2 (FIFTH SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT) <br /> IT IS RECOMMENDED: <br /> That the Board of Supervisors uphold the Planning Commission's action and deny Variance Application <br /> No. VR-94-2 based on the inability to make Findings 1 and 2 as stated in the Staff Report. <br /> REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION: <br /> The Planning Commission heard this item at its regularly scheduled meeting of September 15, 1994. <br /> William Potter, spoke in favor of the project. No one spoke in opposition. <br /> After considering all oral and written testimony, the Commission voted 7-0 to deny Variance Application <br /> No. VR-94-2 due to the inability to make Findings 1 and 2 as stated in the Staff Report. <br /> On September 23, 1994, William Potter appealed the Planning Commission's action to the Board of <br /> Supervisors. <br /> Aooeal Statement No. 1 <br /> In his appeal, the applicant states: <br /> 'The Commission determined that Finding No. 1 (special circumstances) could not be made. The <br /> Commission found that the reasons cited do not relate to size, shape topography, location, or <br /> surroundings.' <br /> 'Applicant contends that these findings were incorrect, because there are special circumstances <br /> relating to the 'surroundings' of the property. The fact that there are many pre-existing, non- <br /> conforming residential parcels in the area does create a special circumstance, in that one major <br /> reason for the applicable zoning (separating incompatible uses) does not apply in this case. This <br /> creates special circumstances relating to the property's surroundings.' <br /> he applicant also asserts that the existing house will continue to be occupied by the same <br /> family;the remainder will continue to be farmed by the same family; and the owners are financially <br /> constrained from selling the remainder for another ten years. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.