213, A side yard variance to increa, ApplicationCITY OF ROLLING' HILLS. '•
?plication for a) Change .of Zoning
b) Variance from Zoning Ordinance
c) Conditional Use Permit
ie .undersigned MR. AND MRS. WILLIAM B. ,CAMPBELL
. N AMA
• 3 Middleridge Lane .North, ' Rolling Hills' Estates ,
STREET ADDRESS - .
. 90274 'S41=239.1
TELEPHONE N
IX/are the .owner(s) of 3 Middleridge Lane North, Rolling Hills
has 'permission of the owner.- -
I plaintiff
!gal description of . prope• rty situated at • 11, 12866
• LOT TRACT
3' Middleridge Larie North. Rolling Hills Estates, 'California
STREET ADDKWSS
*fitions .-for Va.rianee...from zoning ordinance re sdeyard restrictions
I. Such change is warranted because (State reasons) See Letter .of
June 14, 1978; from William B. and -Faye H. Campbell co. BoaLd u.
liireccors, Rolling Hills Community A55ueLatioa, heLaLu a�
ixhibit "A". Both the Architectural ComLTlueG aliu Like
Llir•ectuLs have approved the plains beiLl6 budiwiLLed heLewith.
II.• Such change is based upon the following described exceptional or extra-
ordinary circumstances or conditions that do not apply generally to othi
propertyor class -of use in the -same vicinity and zone State--circ
stance__See Paragraphs 1 through 11 inclusive of Exhibit "A" attached.neretc
LI. _ Such .change is necessary for_the _preserva.tion_and-enjoyment of a -sub-
stantial property right possessed by other property -in the same vicinity
and zone,XLMEMODOOMODWO but which is denied to the property in question:
SEE EXHIBIT "B" attached hereto•.
V. Such change will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements_in such_vicinity and zone when
property is located because by substantially improving, enlarging and
increasing the value of #3 Middleridge Lane North, the project will also have
a tendency to increase the values in the vicinity and otherwise benefit the
neighborhood through the addition of a more attraetive, valuable residence.
All of the residents on Middleridge Lane, including the Hatches to the immediate
north and the Canes who own the vacant lot to the south, nave seen the plans and
have approved of them.
(If additional space is needed, use reverse side of sheet)
•
.............................................................................................................................................................
3 Middleridge Lane North
Rolling Hills Estates, California
June 14, 1978
Board of Directors
Rolling Hills Community Association
2 Portuguese'Bend Road
Rolling.Hills, California 90274
Re: Application of Mr. and Mrs. Campbell
for Building Permit to Add tbResidence
Located at 3 Middleridge Lane North
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board:
We understand that there has been some
difficulty in approving the plans which we have sub-
mitted for an addition to our home because a portion of
the proposedaddition extends into the side yard. Even
though this is so, my wife and I believe that the peculiar
facts and circumstances which relate to our situation
compel the conclusion that approval of the plans which
we have submitted would be of benefit to, and in the
best interests of, the community which this Board
represents. Disapproval of our plans would work a
severe, and we submit unfair, hardship on my wife and
our family. The: -reasons are as follows:
1. Our home was built on Middleridge Lane
in approximately 1941. As can be seen from the
original plans which we have, there was no side-
yard restriction at that time. The building
regulations and Ordinance No. 33 were implemented
at a -later time and superimposed the side yard.
..:estrictions . over portions of the lot which were
already occupied by the residence.
2. After implementation of the building
regulations and enactment of Ordinance No. 33,
it is our understanding that some time in 1974
the Board of Directors approved a set of plans
EXHIBIT A
.... • ..... .•••
•1.•. ....................
Board of Directors -2- June 14, 1978
Re: Campbell Application
for Building Permit
submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Poer, who then owned the
home, -which included aladdition tothe house
extending into the side yard by projecting in •
a straight line the existing north and south walls.
of the home. The exterior boundaries of the additian,
which we are now proposing are approximately the same
as those contained in the plans previously approved
by theYBoard when submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Poer in
1974.
3. When my wife.and I purchased our home in
August of 1977, we did so with the understanding
that we could add to the existing residence. We
have six children, three of whom live with us on
a permanent basis, and the other three of whom live
with us part of the time. Frequently, all six of
the children are at our hone. With eight people
in our family it would have been foolish indeed to
purchase a three bedroom, two bath home. with no addition
possible.
4. When we first viewed our present home as
prospective purchasers, the approved Poer plans for
addition were displayed in the living room. We
were advised by the sellers and our broker that these
plans had been approved by the City. We purchased
the home in large part on the strength of this
representation. We certainly would not have purchased
the home had we known that an addition into the side
yard would not be permitted.
5. 40.n the assumption and understanding that:.
• the City would approve an addition in substantially
the same areas as previously approved for the Poers,
we have now spent in excess of 81,000 in preparing
----th-e'Plans. which we have now submitted for your
consideration.
EXHIBIT A
•
........................................................................................................................................
Board of Directors -3- June 14, 1978
Re: Campbells Application
for Building Permit
6. As a part of our overall plan, we are
building a pool. We have coordinated the pool
design with the design of the home. The pool
plans have been approved by both the City and the
County and construction on the pool is scheduled to
start in approximatelyone week. :.
7. As the plans demonstrate, with the exception
of the garage, our addition ,'simply extends the existing
north -south walls of our home. Consequently, there
will be very little change in the appearance of our
home from the street. The reason for widening the
garage was so that it would accommodate our van, so
that the van would not have to sit in the driveway.
8. We can conceive of no reason why there
should be an objection to building in the side yard
on the,. southerly side, .since the adjoining lot is
vacant. That lot is approximately .9 acres. It
belongs to the Canes, who live on the other side
of the street. Most importantly, however, that lot
can never be improved, since it would first be ::ec-
essary to subdivide it from the other Cane property
across the road, and even if this were done, no
residence could be constructed on the lot since it
is less than one acre.
9. On the northerly side, the addition will
occupy an area which is now being used as a service
yard. As our plans show, if the addition is permitted,
the service yard would be moved behind our home on the
easterly side. What should be noted here is that the
portion of the side yard to be occupied by the new
addition on the northerly side of the house is already
in use as an enclosed service yard with a fence around
it. Thus, our addition would take up very little side
yard space which is not already enclosed and in use.
10. To add privacy for both our neighbors and
us, we have already planted a hedge to fill in the
northern boundary between our home and our neighbors'
home.
EXHIBIT A
•.................
.................. •
Board of Directors -4- June 14, 1978
Re!,-- Campbell Application
for Building Permit
11. As shown by the petition which we are
submitting herewith, our neighbors on Middleridge
Lane have been informed of our plans and have no
objection whatever to them.
12. It is our understanding that building
permits have been granted in the past allowing con-
struction in the side yard. This is particularly true
where the addition simply extends existing walls and
does not intrude further into the side yard .than::. is
already the case with the existing residence. We
respectfully submit that disapproval of our plans
would unfairly discriminate against 'us.
13. Refusal to permit any addition into the
side yard would effectively block our remodeling
plans. Not only would this work a severe hardship
on our family, but it would substantially reduce the.
value of our home. Furthermore, we submit that if
such a policy were uniformly applied, to all plans
for additions to any of the homes on Middleridge Lane
or Williamburg Lane, similar problems would result,
causing a general decline in the value of the homes
in these areas.
Finally, we respectfully submit that Section II(D)
of thebuilding ,regulations was never intended to apply to
"additions", as opposed to "new residences". That section
.provides in pertinent part as follows:
"YARDS.
(1) New Residences shall be located on the
lot so as to provide: . . .
(b) Side Yard: Not less than ten feet
from the easement line, and if there be
no easement line, or a smaller easement than
ten feet, not less'than twenty feet from
the side lot line; . . .
We agree that it is desirable, and not unreasonable, to
require an ownez who is constructing an entirely new
residence to locate the same on the lot so as to provide.
for the side yard. Obviously, an owner adding on to an
EXHIBIT A
Board of Directors -5 June 14, 19784 •
_Re: Campbell' Application
For Building Permit
existing residence does not have this flexibility. It is
apparent that Section 2(b) does not by its literal terms
apply to "additions", as opposed to "new residences". And
we think that the circumstances of our particular case as
we have outlined above demonstrate adequate reason why
the drafters of the building regulations never intended
that they should apply to additions.
For the reasons discussed above, we respectfully
request approval of our plans.
Very truly yours,
WILLIAM B. CAMPBELL
FAYE H. CAMPBELL
EXHIBIT A
• •
Strict adherence to the sideyard restrictions would effectively
preclude the owners from adding to and otherwise improving
their residence. Being one of the first lots subdivided
in Rolling Hills, Lot 11 has a frontage of only approximately
120 feet. If construction were precluded within 20 feet of
each side boundary, this would leave a buildable frontage of
only approximately 80 feet. The existing three -bedroom,
2600 sq. ft. house currently occupies approximately 94 feet
of the frontage (which takes up all of the sideyard to the
south and approximately 1/2 of the sideyard to the north).
The adjoining properties to the south, and generally through-
out Rolling Hills, are not confronted with this problem.
Even after applying the sideyard restrictions, ample space
exists for logical, well designed additions --not the situation
which presently exists at #3 Middleridge Lane.
EXHIBIT B