107, Construct a 10 ft. feence in s, Resolutions & Approval Conditions_BEFORE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Application
of
Mr. Hubert G. Toll
Lot 59-EF
ZONING CASE NO. 107
FINDINGS AND REPORT
The application of Mr. Hubert G. Toll, Lot 59-EF, Eastfield Tract
for a variance of side yard requirements under Article III, Section
3.07 of Ordinance NO. 33 came on for hearing on the 18th day of April,
1972 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 his application, the Planning Com-
mission, 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. Hubert G. Toll, is
the owner of that certain real property described as Lot 59-EF, East -
field 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.
IIo
The Commissionfurther 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 in opposition thereto.
•11. ,
The Commission further finds that the Toll property is on the
boundary of the City of Rolling Hills, has a ten foot easement on one
side that is used for a flood control project and a,25 foot easement
at the rear, along the boundary between the City and the inincorporated
area of Los Angeles County, and that construction of a tennis court
would not interfere in any way with the trail system in Rolling Hills.
The Commission further finds that the closest structure to the east
of the proposed court is a min.imu,, of 35 feet from the Toll property
line, and the neighbor to the west of the Toll property had requested
and received a similar variance of side yard requirements when a ten-
nis court was built on his property. The Commission finds therefore
that a variance of side yard requirements to allow for construction
of a concrete block wall, tennis court and fence in, the side yard of
his property while retaining the 10' easement shouldbe 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 wel-
..fare or injurious to property inthe same vicinity and zone.
IV.
From the foregoing it is concluded that a variance of side yard
requirements should be granted by the Planning Commission of the City
of Rolling Hills to Mr. Hubert G. Toll, Lot 59-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
"Secretary, Planning ''omission,