SU0004362 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

oG�.��ll`1�� L�mm��i I 2043 OBJECTION TO ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVA�U��e,�fJ To: SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISON 1810 EAST I-IAZELTON AVENUE STOCKTON, CA_ 95205 Contact Person: Leanne Mueller Via FAX: (209) 468-3163 APPLICATION NUMBER:. ._ - PA-030012.(SA).(TE).-...... -- .. Property Owner: Daniel Mills Applicant: Cope Manufacturing Application Review: Bill and Rittll Brown.renew their prior.objections and comments to . the Site Approval application and the requested One Year extension. The Brown's continue their prior objections and object to any extension. Rather than repeat in this comment document prior comments, the document entitled "Objection to Application Referral" dated February 2, 2002, filed with the Community Development Department on 2/4/2002 is incorporated fully by this reference, including ail attachments. Please consider the prior comments as if submitted at this time. Please also consider all - comments made on behalf of Bill and Ruth Brown by Karen Kern at the Appeal of the application before the San Joaquin County Planning Commission at the meeting of May 2, 2002. In addition, prior to any extension, the neighbors and interested parties, as well as the planning Commission should be informed as to what specific progress has been made towards the satisfaction of the Site Approval process, and why that process has not been completed within the specified time period. In particular what conditions remain, what conditions have been met. Information is needed on the Improvement Plan. Does such a Plan exist? If not, why has that document not been prepared in the last 18 months? What has caused the delay? When this public document was requested, it was not available. If this is the key or base document which outlines and provides the details as to how the conditions of Approval for the project will-be met,it should be in existence prior to any extension or further delays in code enforcement. This is a non-complying use without the site Approval application, which is now overdue. Specific goals should be clear to all parties prior to any consideration of an extension. An assessment should be made on the progress of the Improvement Plan to date and a realistic understanding and knowledge that the Property Owner/Applicant has made a good faith effort in the past 18 months towards an honest and complete satisfaction of the Site Approval Application. An extension should not be used in lieu of code enforeement activity for a non-complying use. This business was a non-conforming use for many years, further delays do not serve the function and purpose of county ordinances, and the public is not served nor protected I