249, Encroachment into rear yard se, Resolutions & Approval ConditionsBEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Application
of
Mr. Monty Ormsby
Lot 51-RH
ZONING CASE NO. 249
FINDINGS AND REPORT
The application of Mr. Monty Ormsby, Lot 51-RH, Rolling
Hills Tract, for a Variance of Front Yard Requirements under ARTICLE
III. Section 3.06 of Ordinance No. 169 (ref. Section 1.30, Rear Yard,
Ordinance No. 33) and under ARTICLE III, Section 3.01, Uses Permitted,
Ordinance No. 33 for an addition to an existing stable structure came
on for hearing on the 27th day of May, 1980 in the Council Chambers
of the Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills,
California, and the applicant, having submitted evidence in support
of the application, the Planning Commission, 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, Mr. Monty Ormsby,
is the owner of that certain real property described as Lot 51-RH,
located at 2 Eucalyptus Lane. The Commission finds, further, that
notice of the public hearing in connection with said application was
give
n
as required .by Sections 8,06 and 8.07 ofprdinance No. 33 of
a am nt-; w :: it enr:
5
or verbal, was received in favor of or inoppdsition to the request.
II.
The Commission finds that the applicant wishes to use the
proposed addition to the stable as garage area, with access to
Saddleback Road. The Commission finds further that although the
Zoning Ordinance permits construction of accessory buildings in the
rear yard, Section 1.30 of Ordinance No. 33 states that where a rear
yard abuts a street, it shall meet the front yard requirements of the
ordinance. The Commission finds further that the applicant has stated
that an existing garage adjacent to the house would remain, and use as
a garage would continue. The applicant stated, further, that the ad-
dition in the location requested would be least disruptive to the
property, and automatic locking devices would be installed for
security. The Commission finds, further, that the proposed driveway
access to Saddleback Road would require that traffic using the new
addition to the stable back across the bridle ''tr.ail: into .a•'hazardous
section of Saddleback Road, and: that :the granting of: such ,•Variancei_wbuld
be materially detrimental to the public welfare, and injurious to pro-
perty in the same vicinity and zone.
III.
From the foregoing it is concluded that a`.Variance of set
back requirements for an addition to an existing stable structure
should be denied for the following reasons:
The applicant is not being denied property rights enjoyed
by owners of other properties in the area;
The proposed addition as shown on the map marked Exhibit "A"
would be closer to Saddleback Road than other construction
in the area;
The access to the proposed addition would be in a location
which, in the opinion of the Planning Commission, would
create a dangerous traffic condition and could be hazardous
to horses and riders;
The proposed addition located 15 feet from the roadway would
not be in keeping with other properties in the area;
and it is, therefore, so ordered.
The applicant is further advised that the time within
which to seek judicial review of this action is governed by
Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of
California.
•• ' _ ' VZ];M�i.'+R.B•:a3 -Y.'o`� 3•�:�eliialaESC_
Chair
S retary, Planning Co fission
,e,Y%'/Acib..
annn-g Commission