Loading...
259, Expand garage to a 5-car garag, Correspondence• LAW OFFICES MASON H. ROSE, V OF COUNSEL HOFTON L. BALLOU C. BRUCE MCCASLIN June 19, 1981 Members of the City Council City of Rolling Hills 2 Portugese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 4010 PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH SUITE 100, ACADEMY CENTER ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 (213) 541-9722 Re: Legal Brief Re Absence of Requirement To Obtain Variance To Construct A Fence That Is Not To Be Placed On Boundary Line Or Within An Easement Dear Council Members: Now that the variance which I sought for the purpose of constructing a parking area/recreation area in our front yard has become more or less of a major controversy, both inside and outside the council, I have done what I should have done in the first instance and that is, study the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (hereinafter referred to as "Code") to determine whether it is necessary for us to obtain a variance in order to construct our proposed improvements. After carefully reviewing the Code, I have reached a conclusion that we may legally construct our proposed improvements without obtaining a variance, including the installation of an 8 ft. chain link fence. It has already been determined by the Council that we do not need to seek a variance for the paved areas which we intend to install and that the only matter still at issue is the installation of an 8 ft. fence around the paved parking/recreation area so it can be used as a sports court. Accordingly, the issue that I now present to the Council is whether a removable chain link fence, which is neither installed on a boundary of a property or within an easement on the property, can be legally installed without seeking a variance. The answer to this question is yes, as briefed below. A RECREATION COURT WHICH IS NOT EITHER A TENNIS COURT OR A PADDLE TENNIS COURT IS A PERMITTED USE OF OF LAND IN THE CITY OF ROLLING HILL WITHOUT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OR VARIANCE Permitted uses of residential land in the City of Rolling Hills are found in Code Section 17.16.010 which provides • • Members of the City Council City of Rolling Hills June 19, 1981 Page 2 in pertinent part: Uses permitted in the RA-S zone shall be as follows: A. A single-family one-story resi- dence of a permanent character placed in a permanent location on a building site as provided in Ordinance No. 32 (subdivision ordinance) including the following accessory uses and buildings: 1. A private garage with a minimum capacity of two automobiles, 2. Lath or greenhouses not used commercially, 3. Hobby shops not used commercially, 4. Accessory buildings for guest quarters or servants' quarters, provided that such accessory buildings have no kitchen or kitchen facilities, 5. Swimming pools, outdoor whirl- pool baths or jet -pools, 6. Barns and/or stables; D. The following uses provided that in each instance a conditional use permit has been obtained and continues in full force and effect: 3. Noncommercial residential re- creational uses, including: a. Tennis courts, paddle tennis courts and horseback riding rings. (Citations omitted; amended after applica- tion in question was submitted) Clearly, a "sports court" is not included within the specifically enumerated permitted uses. However, as highlighted above, the word "including" is used in that section and is generally interpreted to mean that the items listed are by way of example and is not meant to exclude other similar uses. The word "including" is an expansive word and not a word of limitation. Accordingly, "sports courts" are not a prohibited usage and by virtue of the word "including", by reasonable interpretation, • • Members of the City Council City of Rolling Hills June 19, 1981 Page 3 such use is permitted. Ballentine's Law Dictionary Second Edition defines "including" in pertinent part as follows: The word may have the sense of addition, and of "also" but may merely specify particu- larly that which belongs to the genuses. (Emphasis added) If permitted uses were intended to be limited to only those uses specified, then the Code would have used such words as "limited to" rather than "including". Certainly the enumerated uses are not meant to be exclusive, otherwise one could not install a basketball backboard over the garage door for the kids or install a croquet game on one's lawn and play croquet without violating Rolling Hills zoning laws. THE ONLY FENCES WHICH ARE CONTROLLED BY CODE ARE THOSE WHICH ARE BOUNDARY FENCES AND THOSE WHICH ARE INSTALLED IN EASEMENTS The subject of "fences" is mentioned in our Code only under "Zoning" and thereunder, in only two places: Section 17.08.230 "Structure Define" and Section 17.28.030 "Fence Height". Those two sections are quoted below. Section 17.08.230 provides: "Structure," "wall" or "fence" means anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires more or less permanent location on the ground or attachment to something having a permanent location on the ground, but not including walls and fences nor other improvements of a minor character, nor safety fences surrounding swimming pools which meet safety and design standards of the Building Code. (Citations omitted; emphasis added) Section 17.28.030, Fence Height provides: Boundary fences shall be not less than four feet nor more than five feet in height and shall not be located in any easement where their erection is prohibited. (Citations omitted; emphasis added) • • Members of the City Council City of Rolling Hills June 19, 1981 Page 4 As it can be clearly seen from the only two code sections which mention fences, there are no prohibitions relating to fences which are not erected either on a property boundary or within an easement. Also, the only limitation on the height of the fence is restricted to boundary line fences. But even more pertinent is the explicit exclusion of fences under the definition of "structure" in Section 17.08.023 as I have emphasised by underlining in that quoted section where it specifically provides "but not including walls and fences". It is hard to understand how our City Attorney could have interpreted an 8 ft. chain link fence to be a "structure" where such interpretation is specifically precluded by the very words of the Code section and how he could advise the Planning Commission or the City Council that a variance is required for an 8 ft. fence where fencing is not restricted in any manner by Code except on boundary lines, within easements or when a conditional use permit is needed to construct a tennis or paddle tennis court. DISCUSSION In an attempt to research the past application of these code sections, I had a discussion with our City Manager and inquired of her whether, to her recollection, a resident had been required to obtain a variance or a conditional use permit to install a fence of any kind that was not on a boundary line, in an easement or around a tennis court or paddle tennis court. Our City Manager stated that, to her recollection, at no time in the past had any resident been required to seek either a variance or a conditional use permit to install a fence other than in the areas enumerated. Accordingly, if our City Manager is correct, based on her 18 years of service in this community, there is no precedent requiring a Rolling Hills landowner to obtain a variance or a conditional use permit to install a fence of the nature which I intend to install. SUMMARY Since we do not intend to install a fence which is by either its location or usage a fence which is controlled by Code, I contend that we can install the proposed fencing without seeking a variance or a conditional use permit. • • Members of the City Council City of Rolling Hills June 19, 1981 Page 5 Since Council has already ruled that our proposed project is not subject to a conditional use permit, I request that our City Attorney consider these points and authorities and submit to the City Council any authority which he has to the contrary. If no authority to the contrary is found, then I respectfully request that the City Attorney render his opinion to the Planning Commission and the City Council that the subject project can be built without permission of any kind from the Planning Commission or the City Council. Respectfully submitted, Mason H. Rose, V MHR:mm cc: City Attorney City Manager • • LAW OFFICES MASON H. ROSE, V OF COUNSEL HOFTON L. BALLOU C. BRUCE MCCASLIN June 17, 1981 Mayor Donald W. Crocker City of Rolling Hills 2 Portugese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Dear Don: 4010 PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH SUITE 100, ACADEMY CENTER ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 (213) 541-9722 Re: 37 Crest Road West; Appeal From Decision of Planning Commission I received your letter of June 12, 1981 addressed to members of the City Council and I think it is appropriate to comment in writing before the next council meeting. First, I have always had and continue to have the utmost respect for you as a person and as a dedicated council member and I am certain that you have weighed the present matters carefully and sincerely hold the convictions that you set forth in your letter. However, you must also realize that I have moved forward in a manner that I believe to be in the utmost good faith; that I sincerely believe that I have been the subject of a vendetta by our City Attorney and the Planning Commission Chairman to defeat my project (for reasons unknown to me); and that when it comes to asserting equal rights for handicapped persons (including myself), I have very strong convictions since I dedicate about a third of my professional life to representing handicapped persons substantially without compensation in seeking equal rights for them. Let us start with the areas where we agree. We agree that in overruling the Planning Commission, the City Council did give consideration to my physical disability and confinement to a wheelchair in granting the variance requested. We agree that Bill Kinley did render his opinion that in granting a variance, only the effect on property can be considered and not the special needs of the property owner. We agree that further research is needed to ascertain whether an amendment of the zoning ordinances is necessary to grant variances where one of the matters to be considered is the owner's special needs because of a physical disability. Mayor Donald W. Crocker June 17, 198i Page 2 You may recall several meetings ago that I requested our City Attorney to research the law and report to us regarding what state or federal law, if any, would prohibit us from enacting an ordinance which would specifically allow the Planning Commission to include as one of the matters to be considered the special needs of handicapped residents who seek a variance. For reasons unknown to me, that requested legal memorandum has not been submitted to the Council and I join with you in seeking resolution of this matter since many of our residents are elderly and several are severely handicapped and I anticipate that this issue will become more prevalent in the future as our handicapped and elderly population continues to grow. Regarding your proposed discussion between the City Council and the Chairman of the Planning Commission, any such discussion should be held in a personal session because I still sincerely hold my convictions that I was the subject of a vendetta and I will continue to express those opinions publicly if I am forced to do so. Until I am convinced to the contrary by full and reasonable explanations of the circumstances which have lead up ,to this situation, I will not participate in any resolution commending the Planning Commission but rather press for the appointment of an independent Ad Hoc Committee to fully investigate the circumstances which lead to the denial of my obviously reasonable project (which now appears not to require a variance) for the reason that I fear that many other residents may be submitted to similar arbitrary bias and personal manipulation. One thing for certain is that it has been an eye- opening experience to "sit on the other side of the council table" and this experience should not go on unnoted if there are in fact problem areas that should be corrected. Regarding my "negative comments regarding the competence and performance of the Planning Commission", generally speaking, you are absolutely right that such should be "appropriately and customarily dealt with in a personal session." However, under the circumstances of my appeal, I was not acting in the role of a City Councilman but rather as a private citizen advocating for the position of my family. Certainly under those circumstances, I had the same right as any other resident to fully express my position in an advocate's posture. To limit me in fully stating my position and my opinions would be to diminish my right of appeal as enjoyed by other residents. However, along these same lines, if our Council is to discuss our relationship with the Planning Commission, this should be done in a personal session. You state that the handling of my appeal has "undermined the Planning Commission" and is perceived by some residents as special treatment because of my position as a Mayor Donald W. Crocker June 17, 1981 Page 3 councilman. First, we (the City Council) have overturned rulings of the. Planning .Commission on other occasions when the facts warranted such action. Second, what may have in fact happened is that because of my position as- a councilman, the Planning Commission became supersensitive of being accused of special treatment and therefore applied a much more stringent approach to my property which lead to an unreasonable denial. However, the answer to this controversy will not be apparent until certain other matters are fully explored and explained. You state that my "ill considered and inaccurate public assertions regarding the -competence and skill of the Chairman of the Planning Commission and the decision of the Planning Commission demands (my) public apology." One representing himself at any hearing may make some ",ill considered" statements where an independent counsel might have used restraint but I know of no "inaccurate public assertions" made by me and I will be pleased to address the accuracy of any such alleged statements. Because of my present convictions held in good faith based on well considered facts, I am not prepared to make a "public apology". However, I am fully prepared to publicly apologize to the Planning Commission when I receive satisfactory answers to the following questions: 1. Why was I not informed by the Planning Commission and/or their counsel, the City Attorney, that a variance was neither required for the proposed paving or the proposed fencing? (See my letter brief to the Council of June 19, 1981). 2. Why did the findings of the Planning Commission fail to mention of what I consider to be the single most important fact, that is, that the entire proposed proiect is fully screened from public view by mature vegetation that ranges from 20 feet. to 150 feet tall. 3. Why were the findings of the Planning Commission limited to consideration of only the north side of Crest Road (see. paragraph IV) when directly across from my property on the south side of Crest Road is installed a chain link fence within 25 ft. of Crest Road in plain view of all who pass? Certainly I was not seeking a privilege not enjoyed by directly adjacent property. Also, on the old Gelles' property, located on the south side of Crest Road, the Planning Commission recently approved the conversion of a front yard paddle tennis court to a tennis court, of course involving the installation of a front yard chain link fence fronting on Crest Road about twice the coverage I am seeking. 4. Why did the findings of the Planning Commission state that "granting of the variance would be contrary to the Mayor Donald.W. Crocker June 17, 1981 Page 4 public welfare of other property in the vicinity in that it would detract from the character and basic charm of property with frontage on Crest Road in the vicinity of the subject property" (see paragraph VIII), after adequate public notice was given, no adverse comments were received from any resident in the area, a consent was signed and received from the neighbor (Colyear) most affected and where the planned improvements could not impact any of the five senses of any city resident unless they transpassed upon the property? 5. Why did the findings of the Planning Commission refer to the possible recreational uses of the proposed improvements (see paragraph III & IV) when such uses admittedly were not subject to any conditional use permit at the time of the submission of my proposed improvements' to the Planning Commission? They were required to consider our proposed improvements as if the new amendment covering sports courts did not exist and they refused to do so. 6. Why did the findings of the Planning Commission state that "approval of the variance would have the effect of granting to the subject property a special privilege not enjoyed by or permitted to other property in the vicinity" (see paragraph VII) when in fact (1) my immediate neighbor to the west (Zila) has paved a substantial portion of his front yard closer to Crest Road than I propose and which is not fully screened from view and (2) my neighbor directly across the street (PVUSD) has installed a very visible chain link fence closer to Crest Road than I propose and maintains several paved areas for sports activities. 7. Why did the Planning Commission refuse my oral request to consider only the fence rather than the entire project after being advised by the City Attorney that it had jurisdiction only over the fence? Under what legal authority was that request denied? This circumstance I find most suspicious as attempting to honor the form of my proposal over the substance of what the Planning Commission actually had jurisdiction over. (See enclosed minutes). 8. Why did 'the Planning Commission refuse to specifically and directly answer the questions which I raised in my letter of March 17, 1981 (copy enclosed) seeking clarification of the Planning Commission's decision? The answering letter (also enclosed), obviously circumvenced the direct questions asked. 9. Why was Julie Heinsheimer asked to resign from the Architectural Committee three days before the hearing of my appeal before the City Council? It was reported to me that her Mayor Donald W. Crocker June 17, 1981 Page 5 resignation was sought because of her alleged conflict of interest over my property. (This may be varied by Mrs. Heinsheimer). When the above questions have been answeredto my satisfaction, I will willingly and publicly make my apology. If these questions cannot be satisfactorily answered, I request that an Ad Hoc Committee be formed to investigate possible arbitrary and unreasonable treatment being given residents who seek variances and conditional use permits. Regarding my personal opinion as to the right of the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider the special needs of a handicapped resident, I restate my position that there is no such thing as an adverse impact upon land, that all impact is measured by its effect on people. Land is inanimate and does. not perceive impact. The only impact that is significant is the ability of people to utilize land in a given matter. In order for me to utilize our land and enjoy my home with my wife and children in the same manner that my neighbors are permitted to enjoy their land and with their families, you must take into consideration my special needs in developing my property for the full enjoyment of my family and I. In any event, I seriously doubt that there is any statute or case law which prohibits the consideration of the special needs of a handicapped person in developing their property to meet those needs. I will look forward to any citation of authority from Bill Kinley or our new City Counsel. If such authority does exist, I can assure you that I will pursue changes on behalf of all handicapped persons. Very sincerely, Mason H. Rose, V MHR:mm Enclosure cc: All Council Members All Planning Commission Members Mason H. Rose V 37 Crest Road West Rolling Hills, Ca. 90274 April 1,1981 Re:. Zoning Cases No. 259, 259B Dear Mr. Rose, In response to your letter of March.17, 1981 addressed to the Planning Commission: Your application, separated into two sections at your request, was -for a variance of side yard requirements for the • construction of a garage, and for a variance of front yard .and side yard requirements for the construction of a paved, fenced area for recreation and guest parking, as indicated on Exhibit A. At the meeting on December 9, 1980 the Planning Commission ratified the action taken in the field on November 25, 1980, granting a variance of side yard requirements for the construc- tion of a garage, subject to certain conditions. This portion of the application is referenced as Zoning Case No. 259. At the meeting on March 17, 1981 the Planning Commission denied your request for a variance from front and side yard requirements for the construction of a:paved, fenced area for recreation and guest parking, known as Zoning Case No. 259B. Enclosed are the;Findings and Report of the actions'taken by the Commission. If you have any questions regarding,preced •ures and definitions please refer to Zoning Ordinance Very truly yours, Jody Murdock,_Chairman. Planning Commission JM/ j c ,.setback .requirements.' „?.. ' OF COUNSEL HOFTON L. BALLOU• C. BRUCE HcCA9LIN 4010 PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH S()ITE 1DD, ACADEMY CENTER • ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 (213) 541-9722 Plannin•`Commission City. of ;Rolling' Hills `2. Portugese Bend. Road. Rollin g,'Hil'1s,..California 90274 Re. Zoning Case.No..259BAppeal.from Ruling of Commission,:: March'17 1981 / n a referenced�matterh'and�after;�ml opalared before you on the above y presentation and discussion by Commission members, and with.no.one appearing to object to the requested..• variance,; the .Commission denied my request for front -- yard setback variance..; The purpose of this letter,is•to give you and the City Council formal notice that` I,hereby appeal 'to the City Council .,said denial::ofmy.'request.for.:variance from front and side yard The problem is that I am not exactly certain what it is that you denied.`: My understanding of the applicable ordinances is that I: cane construct my proposed ,parking area, if I do not include .a..fence, without 'a necessity ofa variancebecause the proposed parking area is not considered a "structure" within the meaning of our ordinances and that all. times in the past, persons have been allowed .to. pave within,. the front yard and side : yard setbacks without limitation and without obtaining a variance and that this has been interpreted as legal under our existing so, during the hearing I made it very clear to the Commission,: members that.; I :,was seeking a variance only on those items which requireda variance. As I understand it, only the fencing around the perimeter of the proposed parking area requires.;; a,: variance. Therefore,I request that you clarify what it is that the Commission denied. Does the• Commission believe that it had the jurisdiction to deny and did deny me the right to install the proposed, payed area?, Or did the Commission merely deny me the right toinstall an 8 ft.. fence around the perimeterof that Planning Commission City of Rolling Hills March 17, 1981 Page 2 paved area? •This clarification is necessary so that I know what it is that has been denied and so that I know exactly what it is , that I am appealing from. , Also, I formally request that you set forth your findings of facts, stating all basis upon which you denied . whatever it is you denied. In view of all of the above, this letter I:is to constitute formal notice to .the Planning Commission and to the' City Council of the City of Rolling Hills that I am appealing the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. The City will be given notice by a copy of this letter. . Thank you for your consideration of these matters. MHR:mm Enclosure cc: City of Rolling Hills Very truly yours, • ., rx Y ZONING CASE NO. 259$,MASON ROSE, LOT 241-A-3-MS, VARIANCES, FRONT & SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS Chairman Murdock opened discussion of a request by Mr. Mason Rose, 37 Crest Road West, for variances of front and side yard setback require- ments for construction of a paved area surrounded by an eight foot. high fence to be used as a recreation and guest parking area. The Planning Advisor reviewed the file and reported that the application was made in October 1980.. At the request of the applicant the request for a variance of side yard setback requirements for construction of a 30 x 50' garage to accommodate five vehicles and storage of legal files was considered at a meeting held on November 18, and the request was approved with conditions attached on November 25. Consideration of the proposed guest parking and recreation area was deferred for submittal of new plans. A plan was submitted for the meeting of February 17, 1981, showing a new driveway approach and a proposed paved area 45 x 60', 2700 sq. ft „ sur- rounded by an eight foot high fence. It was agreed that the second sub- mittal would be referred,to as Zoning Case No. 259B. In discussing the matter at the February meeting the Commission suggested that the size be reduced to 40 x 60', 2400 square feet total. A field trip was scheduled to the site to view the proposed parking and recreation area and the revised driveway approach. Mr. Rose explained. that the driveway was redesigned for added safety. The field trip was made on March 16. Chairman Murdock said the public hearing on the matter was still open. Mr. Rose advised the Commission that the proposed construction will be totally obscured from view, and at the request of the Archi- tectural Committee the fence will be covered with black vinyl and will have wooden posts to make it less visible. He said the width of 45' is needed to accommodate the grade necessary for wheelchair access and to provide ample parking for his guests, many of whom are handi- capped and require large parking spaces. He said the projection above ground will be 6 1/2''at the garage, and will be 13' high at the corner closest to Crest Road. Mr. Rose explained that it is not possible to sink the paved area because of the need for wheelchair access. He said minimum grading will be required, there will be 90% compaction and no retaining walls. Mr.. Rose said the construction will not have an ad- verse impact on his neighbors and none of the people notified objected to the request. Although the property consists of two acres, no other location is practical because of the topography Mr. Rose said. Chair- man Murdock closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Field said he thought all of Mr. Rose's comments with regard to parking were appropriate, and it was his opinion that the special parking needs could be handled without a fence. Commissioner Field said the intrusion of an eight foot high fence into the set -backs, especially the front set -back, is the real issue. Commissioner Watts said that paving in the front yard is not a structure, but he questioned whether a paved area 2400 - 2700 square feet should be permitted as close as 15 feet from Crest Road. Chairman Murdock said it is not de- sireable, but is permitted under the existing zoning, ordinance. Chair- man Murdock said changes in the requirements for paving will be consid- ered with other proposed amendments to the ordinance. Commissioner Roberts said the concern of. the Commission is the fence in the front yard set -back, since wheelchair access to the paved area could be provided without a fence. Mr. Rose said he wished to make a statement and the Chairman reopened the Public Hearing. Mr. Rose said the proposed parking and recreation area will be screened by mature vegetation, the percentage of coverage is substantially below the maximum permitted by ordinance and Mr. Richard Colyear, 35 Crest Road West, stated in writing that he has no objection to the proposal. Mr. Rose said the paved and fenced area is planned for the only logical location on his property, and to deny the request would deprive him of his right to enjoy his property because of his individual needs. A memo dated March 17, 1981 from the City Manager addressing the drainage on the Rose property was received for the file. 'Commissioner Field said he wished to move, for the purpose of discussion, that a variance of front and side yard requirements for construction of a paved recreation and guest parking area with an eight foot high perimeter fence, which would project into the side yard and 35 feet into the required front set -back, leaving 15 feet from the road easement, be approved, subject to standard conditions, including approval of a landscape plan. Chairman Murdock said a land- scape plan has been submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roberts. Commissioner Watts proposed an amendment to the motion, then withdrew the amendment. Mr. Rose said the only matter actually before the Commission was a request, for an eight foot high fence extending into the front and side yard•setbacks, since the paved area is not a structure, and he offered to amend the application orally to request approval of the fence and omit any reference to the paved area. Chairman Murdock said it was her opinion that the application could not be amended orally, and if Mr. Rose wished to revise the application a new plan .should be submitted. Mr. Kinley said that since the paved area was called out in the original application and is shown on the plan it would be nec- essary to file an amended application in order for the Commission to consider the fence and exclude the paved area from their deliberation. Commissioner Watts said the proposed paved area is larger than a paddle tennis court, and although Mr. Rose has stated that it will not be used for paddle tennis, he did say it would be used for volley ball, basket- ball and other recreational purposes, and he suggested that it be con- sidered a court. Mr. Rose said it is his opinion that the Planning Commission has no jurisdiction over how the paved area is used. The motion to approve the request for front and side yard variances was defeated on the following roll call vote: AYES: None NOES: Commissioners• Roberts, Watts, Field, Chairman Murdock ABSENT: .Commissioner Hanscom Mr. Rose said he wished to appeal the decision orally, and he asked that the tape of the meeting be preserved and made available to him. Mr. Kinley said the denial was of the plan as filed, which showed a paved area enclosed by a fence. Chairman Murdock said she would meet with Mr. Kinley and findings would be prepared and sent to Mr. Rose with- in the time limit set forth in the ordinance. • • LAW ❑FFICES MASON H. ROSE, V OF COUNSEL HOFTON L. BALLOU C. BRUCE McCASLIN March 17, 1981 Planning Commission City of Rolling Hills 2 Portugese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 4010 PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH SUITE 100, ACADEMY CENTER ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274 (213) 541-9722 Re: Zoning Case No. 259B; Appeal from Ruling of Planning Commission, March 17, 1981 Dear Commission Members: On March 17, 1981, I appeared before you on the above referenced matter and after my oral presentation and discussion by Commission members, and with no one appearing to object to the requested variance, the Commission denied my request for front and side yard setback variance. The purpose of this letter is to give you and the City Council formal notice that I hereby appeal to the City Council said denial of my request for variance from front and side yard setback requirements. The problem is that I am not exactly certain what it is that you denied. My understanding of the applicable ordinances is that I can construct my proposed parking area, if I do not include a fence, without a necessity of a variance because the proposed parking area is not considered a "structure" within the meaning of our ordinances and that all times in the past, persons have been allowed to pave within the front yard and side yard setbacks without limitation and without obtaining a variance and that this has been interpreted as legal under our existing ordinances. Also, during the hearing, I made it very clear to the Commission members that I was seeking a variance only on those items which required a variance. As I understand it, only the fencing around the perimeter of the proposed parking area requires a variance. Therefore, I request that you clarify what it is that the Commission denied. Does the Commission believe that it had the jurisdiction to deny and did deny me the right to install the proposed paved area? Or did the Commission merely deny me the right to install an 8 ft. fence around the perimeter of that • • Planning Commission City of Rolling Hills March 17, 1981 Page 2 paved area? This clarification is necessary so that I know what it is that has been denied and so that I know exactly what it is that I am appealing from. Also, I formally request that you set forth your findings of facts, stating all basis upon which you denied whatever it is you denied. In view of all of the above, this letter is to constitute formal notice to the Planning Commission and to the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills that I am appealing the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. The City will be given notice by a copy of this letter. Thank you for your consideration of these matters. Very truly yours, Mason H. Rose, V MHR : mm Enclosure cc: City of Rolling Hills By 77P t)--1-0 MAR 1 1981 I k,..•l LLS on DATE Ciiy Mr. Mason H. Rose V 37 Crest Road West Rolling Hills, Ca. 90274 RE: ZONING CASE NO. •259 41k /E'0/L 6>L>� INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD • ROLLING 1a1LLS. CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 January 8, 1981 REQUEST FOR Variance, Front & Side Yard Requirements Enclosed are the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings on 11/25/80 and 12/9/80 approving your request referenced above, and the Findings and Report of the Planning Commission setting forth the conditions of approval. In order for you to obtain.a building permit it will be necessary for you to sign and return one copy of this letter, signifying your understanding and acceptance of the conditions of approval. June C. Cunningham Deputy City Clerk I have read the conditions of approval of my application for approved by the Planning Commission and accept said conditions. BY: Applicant or Representative THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Mayor DONALD W. CROCKER Mayor Pro Tem GODFREY PERNELL. Councilman MASON H. ROSE V Councilman GORDANA SWANSON Councilwoman TEENA CLIFTON City Manager • City 0/ RO/A $.wee INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUES.E REND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, •CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1321 December 29, 1980 Mr. Ivan Bullum, District Engineer Los Angeles County Department of Engineers 24320 South Narbonne Avenue Lomita, California 90717 Dear. Ivan: Please consider this letter as authorization from the City of Rolling Hills to issue a building permit to Mason Rose, 37 Crest Road West, for the construction of a house addition. Mr. Rose was required to have a Side -yard Variance for his new garage. The Side -yard Variance was approved by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission .on December 9, 1980.with the following conditions 1. The horse shelter on the property be removed; 2. A stallion presently on the property without approved fencing be removed from the property or .be housed in an approved fence. At. their meeting of December 22, 1980 the City Council discussed. with Mr: Rose the matter of his obtaining a building permit from the City if all conditions of approval by the Planning Commission were met without first obtaining a building permit from the Rolling Hills Community Association. It was the City Attorney's opinion that Mr. Rose had a legal right to obtain such a permitwithout first obtaining a Rolling Hills Community Association permit. As a result of that legal opin- ion the City Manager was directed to issue a permit to Mr. Rose if the Manager, after a personal visual inspection of the property, confirmed that Mr. Rose had met the aforementioned conditions. That visual inspection was made at 4:00 P.M. on December 29, 1980 and as a result you may issue the permit if all other conditions required during City plan check with your department have been approved. Sincerely, ze„-, Teena ClifLton City Manager TC:ma s C•E� ofi2 fP,.g JkPP, THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Mayor DONALD W. CROCKER Mayor Pro Tem GODFREY PERNELL Councilman MASON H. ROSE V Councilman GORDANA SWANSON Councilwoman TEENA CLIFTON City Manager Mr. Mason H. Rose V 37 Crest Road West Rolling Hills, California 90274 Dear Mr. Rose, • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-I524 December 18, 1980 Re: Zoning Case No..259 Lot 241-A-3 MS The Planning Commission's action on December 9, 1980 which ratified the tentative approval given in the field on November 25, 1980 of your request for a variance of side yard setback requirements has been. placed on the City Council agenda for review at the meeting on Monday, December 22, 1980. Very truly yours, ne C. Cunningham Deputy City Clerk • • C14 Mr. Mason H. Rose 37 Crest Road West Rolling Hills, Ca. 90274 Dear Mason, INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 December 2, 1980 This is to advise you that your request to the Planning Commission for a variance of side yard requirements on your property was tentatively approved in the field on November 25, 1980 subject to submittal of a revised plan showing correction of the map marked Exhibit "A'' to show the actual proposed location of the paved area, including topographical engineering and grading of the area; elimina- tion of the masonry posts in the easements, and elimination of the side and rear easements which are shown on the map originally submitted with your application. Please submit the corrected plan within the twenty day period required by Section 6.08 of Ordinance No. 33, the Zoning Ordinance. Very truly yours, 74, o6 Ci Jody Murdock, Chairman Planning Commission JM/ j c