SU0003099 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY COMYUMi7Y DgVMOPUW DEPARTMENT �' • 1819 E.NAZELTON AVE..STOCKTON,CA 952D54= DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Pip PLANNING PNONE:{2D9 4W BUILDING BUILDPHONE:{209x•98.3ay�09, 1993 NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVA5021 Board of Supervisors MAY 21 1993 Cturfix)USS OMRONMENTAL HEALTH Stockton, CA 95202 FE M01 SERVICES Dear Board Members: APPEAL OF FOPPIANO & CHINCHIOLO, ET AL F SITE APPROVAL AppUCATIONS NO. SA493-03 AND SA-93-04 OF FOPPIANO & CHMI-1101-0, ET AL (C/o ROBERT CHiNCHIOLO) (DISTRICT 5) IT IS IIMEfED: That the Board ot S ora deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission decision to deny Site Aral Apples No. SA-93-03 and SA-99-04. s i ROUND: Site Approval Application No.SJR-93-03 and Site Approval Appticadon No.SA 93.04 are two separate 81*40 i" which are proposed on adjaow t pard by the same g0wnt• The proposed projects would share a common driveway, a common &age pond, and a comawn fire pond. A Traffic Study which included both sites was completed and convnon conditions were Wo mmanded- Since these two separate applications were reviewed in a joau"Ific study and they propose shared facilities, they were p sib to the Planning Commission but separate motions were made. The applicants proposal{SA-93.03) is for a cherry packing shed and cold enrage to be completed it two Omm The apptfcant's Proposal(SA-93-04) Is for the addition of cold storage re an egg pacift shed to be completed in two phases. The Planning Commission heard these matters at its meeting of Aprit 15, 1993. At the meeting, Joseph RishwaIM rspr rg the applicar-d, slime In favor of the proposal. Also erg in favor of the project were Mike Addlemwr, Will" Elias, Ron Addington, Blit Dobbs,Mingo Gueffk*Ted Holsbom,and Frank Stegmuler. Speaking in opposition to the project was Howard Seitgman, represerUng some of the farmers and Property owners In the area. Also speaking in opposition to the project were Patricia Pereira,John Rossi,Joe Ghio,Lino Risso,Gerald Nola, Louis Casale, Jerry Senderov, Marie Rossi, Rebecca Senderov, Dave Podesta, and Debbie Davis. The opponents raised the folk wing issues: traffic, noise,scale of the project,compatibility with adjacm land uses. After considering all written and oral testimony, the Planning Commission voted 2-5 to approve Site Approval Application No. SA-93-03 and 3-4 to approve Site Approval Appfkation No. S493-04. Sine the applications did not have a majority vote in the affirmative, they were deemed to have been denied. . On April 23, 1993 Robert Ch1nchiolo, filed appeals of the Planning Commission's actions. In his appeals, the appellant listed the following bases for the appeal: 1. APPEAL STATEMENT'. Mw proposed use is consistent with the goats, policies, standards and maps of the General Plan and any able specMc PWM' RESPONSE: This Finding was not a basis for the denial of these applications.