143, Extension of existing non-conf, Resolutions & Approval ConditionsBEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Application )
of )
) ZONING CASE NO. 143
Mr. John Provine )
)
Lot 44-RH )
FINDINGS AND REPORT
The application of Mr. John Provine, Lot 44-RH, Rolling Hills
Tract, for a conditional use permit under Article III, Section 3.06,
Front Yard Requirements and Article V, Section 5.05, Non -conforming
Use, Ordinance No. 33 came on for hearing on the 19th day of August,
1975 in the Council Chambers of the Administration Building, 2 Portu-
guese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California, and the applicant, having
submitted evidence in support of the application, the Planning
Commission, being advised, now makes its Findings and Report as
required by the Ordinances of the City of Rolling Hills, California.
I.
The Commission finds that the applicant, Mr. John Provine, is
the owner of that certain real property described as Lot 44-RH, Rolling
Hills Tract, located in the City of Rolling Hills, California, and
that notice of the public hearing in connection with said application
was given as required by Sections 8.06 and 8.07 of Ordinance No. 33
of the City of Rolling Hills, California.
II.
The Commission finds, further, that no person appeared at said
public hearing in opposition to the application, and that no comment,
written or oral, had been received in favor of or opposition to the
request.
III.
The Commission further finds that the applicant requests the
conditional use permit for construction of a residence addition which
would project into the front yard, and would constitute an extension
of an existing non -conforming condition; the existing residence is
27 feet from the road, but because Williamsburg Lane curves in the
area of the proposed constuction, the addition would be only 25 feet
from the road. Further, theCommission finds that Williamsburg Lane
has limited set -backs and does not conform with the Zoning Ordinance,
as it was built prior to adoption of the ordinance, and is a unique
area built as a whole, different in concept and architecture from
the rest of the City. The Commission finds, therefore, that a
conditional use permit should be granted in order to preserve sub-
stantial property rights possessed by other property in the same
vicinity and zone, and that the granting of such conditional use
permit would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
and injurious to property in the same vicinity and zone.
IV.
From the foregoing it is concluded that a conditional use
permit should be granted under Article III, Section 3.06, Front
Yard Requirements and Article V, Section 5.05, Non -conforming Use,
Ordinance No. 33 to Mr John Provine, Lot 44-RH, for construction of
a residence addition projecting into the front yard and resulting in
a front_yard set -back of 25 feet from the road in the area of the
addition, and it is, therefore, so ordered.
/s/ William Field
Chairman, Planning -Commission
Secretary, Planning Commission