SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

ti i4 May 18,2003 a '2 San Joaquin County E.H.D. Attn:Margaret Lagorio 304 East Weber Ave. Third Floor Stockton,CA 95202-2708 Dear Margaret, This letter shall recap our conversation on May 14, 2003 after I attempted to obtain a building permit to build a single family residence on our property at 10834 Copperopolis Road (Parcel# 103-110-05). As you know,E.H.D.has refused to allow me to obtain a building permit for this property located to the south of Parcel#103-110-06,which has a contamination issue. During our phone conversation, I told you that I felt E.H.D.was refusing to allow me to develop parcel#103-110-05(which is not contaminated)simply because we own parcel#103-110-06,which has contamination from two fuel tanks which were removed in 1993. On May 15,2003 1 spoke via phone with Laurie Cotulla. She stated that E.H.D.was not allowing a permit because the Board of Supervisor's had placed restrictions on both properties. She suggested that I listen to the audio of the board meeting from February 25,2003. It is clear to me,after reviewing the tape from this board meeting,that the Supervisors had little or no information from E.H.D.regarding the contamination issue. According to the tape some board members believed both parcels were one parcel,that the tanks had not been removed and that I have not made any attempts to resolve the contamination issue. R is clear to me that lack of information and direction from E.H.D.resulted in the Board placing restrictions on these properties. We are only asking for a permit for parcel#103-110-05,which is not contaminated. Just as the County would not,(and has not),denied property owners to the east,or west of the contaminated parcel,we feel we should not be denied development of our property to the south of the contamination. We would appreciate a written response to this letter. Sincerely, Philip&Irene Henry CC: Donna K.Heran Laurie A.Cotulla Supervisor Jack Sieglock *CERTIFIED