240, Construct a tennis court, Resolutions & Approval Conditionsi
BEFORE 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. 240
Dr. Thomas Cipolla )
)
Lot •3-BW )
FINDINGS AND REPORT
The application of Dr. Thomas Cipolla, Lot 3-BW, Buggy Whip
Tract, for a Conditional Use Permit under Section 3.01 (D), Paragraph 3
of Ordinance No. 170 came on for hearing on the 18th day of December,
1979 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 Commis-
sion, 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, Dr. Thomas Cipolla,
is the owner of that certain real property described as Lot 3-BW,
located at 14Buggy Whip Drive in the City of Rolling Hills, andthat
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. The Commission finds that no
comment, written or.verbal, was received in opposition to the request,
that Mrs. Julie Heinsheimer, 7 Johns Canyon Road, advised the engineer
that she did not object to the proposal, and that letters were submitted
for the record from Mrs. Carl Ghormley, 2 Johns Canyon Road; F. H. Chubb,
12 Buggy Whip,; W. E. Thompson, 10 Buggy, Whip and C. E. Rutherford,
16 Buggy Whip, stating that they reviewed the proposed tennis court as
shown on the plan prepared by South Bay Engineering Corporation, and
had no objections to it.
II.
The Commission finds that although the tennis court is a
permitted use and is planned for construction away from the road, it
would have a ten foot high fence on top of a five foot high wall, so
there .would be a fifteen foot high face adjacent t.o the bridle trail; that
construction of a tennis court approximately 65 feet below the level
of the residence would be contrary to the intent of the City's General
Plan to protect the canyons and to preserve ridge tops and canyon bottoms,
and construction of a tennis court in a canyon would be contrary to the
general welfare of the Community. The Commission finds that a Condition-
al Use Permit should not be granted, in order to preserve substantial.
property rights in the same vicinity and zone, and that the granting of
such Conditional Use Permit would be materially detrimental to the public
welfare and injurious to property in the same vicinity .and zone, and to
the quality of the environment.
III.
From the foregoing it is concluded that a conditional use
permit should not be granted to Dr. Thomas Cipolla, Lot 3--BW, 14 Buggy
Whip Drive for construction of a tennis court, and it is, therefore,.
so ordered.
irman, PlanninCommission
retary, Planning Coijiission