39, Side yard variance of 10 feet, Resolutions & Approval Conditions1
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS,
COUNTY OF.LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 In the Matter of the Application
3 of
4 HALLETT F. BROWN
5 Lot 22, Eastfield (R.& S. 58-6, 10)
6
ZONING CASE NO. 39
7 FINDINGS AND FORMAL REPORT
8 The application of Hallett F. Brown, Jr., Lot 22, East-
9 field, for a side yard variance, came on for hearing on the 17th
10
day of December, 1963 and the 28th day of January, 1964, at the
11
hour of 8:00 P.M., at the City Hall of the City of Rolling Hills,
12
13 California, and the applicant having submitted evidence in support
14 of his application, and the Planning Commission being advised,
15 now makes its Findings and Formal Report as required by the
16
Ordinances of the City of Rolling Hills, California.
17
I.
18
The Commission finds that the applicant, Haslet F. Brown,
19
20 Jr. is the owner of that'certaih real property described as Lot 22,
21 Eastfield, located in the City of Rolling Hills, California, and
22 that notice of the public hearing in connection with said applica-
23 tion was given as required by Sections 8.06and 8.07 of Ordinance
24
No. 33, of the City of Rolling Hills, California.
25
26
27 That no person appeared at said public hearing in
28 opposition to the application for a variance and that no evidence
29 was received by the Commission in opposition thereto.
30
31
32
II .
1
2 addition including the roof overhang is to 'oextend ten (19) feet
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 the same vicinity and zone.
The Commission further finds that the proposed residence
into the sideyard of said Lot instead of the twenty (20) feet for
the residence and twenty-five (25) inches for the overhang per-
mitted by said Zoning Ordinance, and further finds that by reason
of the terrain of said Lot 39, the variance should be granted to
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 detri-
mental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improve-
ments in such vicinity and zone in which applicant's property is
located, and that there are exceptional and extraordinary circum-
stances and conditions by reason of physical location and terrain
of said Lot 94, which do not apply generally to other property in
18
IV.
19
From the foregoing it is concluded that a variance
20
21 should be granted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling
22 Hills to Hallett F. Brown, Jr. of Lot 22 of Eastfield in accordance
23 with the Plot Plan marked Exhibit I on file in these proceedings,
24 and it is, therefore, so ordered.
25 Dated: . February 3, 1964
26
27
28 Chairman, Planning Commission
29
30
Secretary, Planning Commission
31
32
-2-