98, 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 N0. 98
Mr. William Kester )
)
Lot 121EF )
r '
FINDINGS AND REPORT
The application of Mr. William Rester, Lot 121-EF, Eastfield
Tract for a variance of front yard requirements under Article III,
Section 3.06 and Article V, Section 5.06, non -conforming use of a
conforming building, Ordinance No. 33 came on for hearing on the 14th
day of December, 1970 in the Council Chambers of the Administration
Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California, and the
applicant, having submitted evidence in support of his application,
the Planning Commission, being advised, now makes its Findings and
Report as required by the Ordinances of the City of Rolling Hills,
California.
The Commission.. finds that the applicant, Mr. William Kester, is
the owner of that certain real property described as Lot 121-EF, East -
field Tract, located in the City ofRollingHills, 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 further finds that no person appeared at said
public hearing in opposition to the application for a -variance, and
that no evidence was received by the Commission inopposition thereto.
11I.
The Commission further finds that the existing residence was
built .before adoption of the Zoning Ordinance of the. City., .and is _
built at an angle on the property. The new addition would be 18 to
23 feet from the road easement, instead of 30 feet as required by the
• •
Zoning Ordinance, and would be located approximately 68 feet from the
paving of Crest Road East. The house roof ridge would be almost level
with the road with the pad approximately 12 feet below the road level.
The Commission finds therefore that a variance to permit a Non -conforming
use of a Conforming Building should be granted to the applicant in order
to preserve substantial property rights possessed by other property in
the same vicinity and zone, and that the granting of such variance 'will
not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
property in the same vicinity and zone.
IV.
From the foregoing it is concluded that a variance should be granted
by the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills under Article III,
Section 3.06 and Artiti.e V, Section 5.06 of Ordinance No. 33 to Mr. William
Kester, Lot 121-EF, Eastfield Tract in accordance with the plot plan
marked Exhibit I on file in these proceedings, and it is, therefore, so
ordered.
/s/ Godfrey Pernell
Chairman, Planning 'Commission
ecretary, Planning C ission