141, Construct a stable in front ya, 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
Mr. S. D. Weiman
Lot 174C-MS
ZONING CASE NO. 141
FINDINGS AND REPORT
The application of Mr. S. D. Weiman, Lot 174C-MS, Miscel-
laneous Tract, for a conditional use permit under Article III,
Section 3.06, Front Yard Requirements, Ordinance No. 33 came on
for hearing on the 20th day of March, 1975 in the Council Chambers
of the Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills
California, and the applicant, having submitted evidence in supoort
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. S. D. Weiman, is
the owner of that certain real property described as Lot 174-C-MS,
Miscellaneous Tract, located in the City of Rolling Hills, California,
and that notice of the public hearing in connection with said appli-
cation 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 further finds that no written comment in favor
of -or in opposition to the request was received, and at.the Public
Hearing Mr. Joseph=Abdo, 25 Crest --Road_West_spoke—in opposition -to the
requested location for a stable, and Mr. E. L. Pearson, 1 Johns Canyon
Road, spoke in favor of the request.
III.
The Commission finds, further, that the applicant requests the
conditional use permit for construction of a stable in the front yard
of his property because a non-exclusive easement prohibits construction
of a stable on the rear portion of his property. The applicant stated
that large trees planted to screen the school district property from
his -view -provide: 65-75% .screening,- and he would =be -agreeable --to extending
the screening to 95% to disallow objections to the front yard location.
The applicant stated further that in developing his property and building
his home he attempted to comply with all requirements and had built a
typical ranch home, and addition of a stable would not detract, but would
add to the charm of the property, and would provide a use enjoyed by
other properties in the area. The Commission finds that a variance was
granted for construction of a tennis court in the rear yard in 1973,
and an additional conditional use permit for construction of a stable
in the front yard should not be granted.
IV.
From the foregoing it is concluded that a conditional use
permit should not be granted under Article III, Section 3.06, Front
Yard Requirements, Ordinance No. 33 to Mr. S. D. Weimen, Lot 174C-MS,
since in the opinion of the Planning Commission, the existing easement
on the rear portion of the property diminishes the land available for
development, and construction of a stable in the front yard would
cause over -crowding, and detract from the property and surrounding
properties, and it is, therefore, so ordered.
/s/ William C. Field
Chairman, Planning Commission
•
cretary, Planning Co{fnission