218, Decrease side yard setback to , CorrespondenceJanuary 16, 1979
Planning Commission Members
City of Rolling Hills
Rolling Hills, Calif. 90274
Dear Commissioners,
Weapologize for the brevity of this letter necessitated.
by the fact that we were not given legal notice of this
meeting tonight concerning the request of Dr. and Mrs. Larry
Kelly to build their home further into the easement of our
common boundary.
We simply wish to state that we will hold the Kellys, the
Planning Commission, and the City of Rolling Hills legally
responsible if the use of our .property is ±ny-any way adversely
affected by the granting of permission, to build their home
any closer to our property line.
Thank you for your attention.
a •
To: Rolling Hills Planning Commission
From: Mrs. Richard B. Hoffman
73 Portuguese Bend Road
Date: 13 December 1978
Subject: Proposed Variance requested by Dr. Larry Kelly
Lot 35-FT
2 Pinto Road
Having received Legal notice of consideration by the
Planning Commission of a variance for a residence
addition requested by Dr. Larry Kelly at 2 Pinto Road,
I viewed the area in question, and am of the following
opinion.
This specific variance, if granted, would have no
negative affect.
The Easement involved is not currently,
nor could it ever be, used as a trail.
There is seemingly no potential for any use
of the Easement in question by members of the
Community Association (owners of the Easements).
Private use of the Easement would create a hazard
for no-one.
The desirable goal of maintaining open easements for
"open space" appearances would be insignificantly
affected due to the existant location of the structures
on this lot.
The aesthetics of the neighborhood would not be
adversely affected (perhaps positively affected by
attractive construction).
I therefore see no reason to deprive Dr. L. Kelly of this
particular request for a variance, and would support approval
being granted.
Respectfully,
2�..✓06
MRS. R.B. HOFFMA
December 12, 197�3
Planning Commission
City of Rolling Hills
Rolling Hills, California
Dear Commissioners,
We are writing in response to the,re.quest by. Dr. harry Kelly
for a variance to build within the easement which is adjacent
to the southern boundry of our property.
Wehave become increasinglyconcerned about the new liability
of such building. Dr. and Mrs. Kelly requested two "stop
orders" against construction on our property,and during the
ensuing meeting, expressed alarm and concern over the possi-
bility of receiving water or mud from our property above.
We see .this concern (valid or not valid) and the Kelly's
proposed project as contradictory to each other. How can
they be truly concerned about mud or water flowing into their
home and still propose to come closer to the property line
with a new addition to their home?
It is not our purposeto prevent the Kellys from building
anywhere on .their property that the City of Rolling Hills
and the Community Association approve, but we think it is.
unreasonable for us, the uphill property, ,who already bear
the largest share of liability for mud, water, etc., to be
expected to accept this new liability from the proposed new
construction, and we; absolutely refuse to accept this new
liability.
Although it is not our place to delegate this new liability'
to any person, group, or organization, weassume that if this
construction closer to our property line is approved, the
City or Community Association of Rolling Hills, the County
of'1os Angeles, or the Kellys are accepting this new liability.
We hope that this problem can be solved to the satisfaction
of all concerned and especially that the Kellys will be able
to expand their home to meet their needs. Thank you for your
consideration.
ames B. Evans
o ya - R. Evens