42, a small portion of the overhan, 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
R. E. FORTNEY
Lot 11, Sunny Knolls Tract
For a Side Yard Variance
Zoning Case No. 42
FINDINGS AND FORMAL REPORT
The application of R. E. FORTNEY, Lot 11, Sunny Knolls Tract,
for a Side Yard Variance, came onfor hearing on the 28th day of April,
1964, at the hour of 8 o'clock P.M., at the City Hall, City of Rolling
Hills., California; Commissioners Gray, Blakey, Hill and Fay being present
and constituting a quorum of the Commission and Commissioner Mahan being
absent. Evidence having been submitted by applicant in support of his
application and the Planning Commission being fully advised, now makes
its findings and formal report as required by Ordinance No. 33 of the City
of Rolling Hills, California:
1. The Commission finds that applicant R. E. Fortney
is the owner of that certain real property described
as Lot 11, Sunny Knolls Tract, located in the City
of Rolling Hills, State of California, and that
notice of said hearing on said application was
given as required by Sections 8.06 and 8.07 of
Ordinance No. 33 of the City of Rolling Hills,
California.
2. Dr. Allen L. Pyeatt, 24 Caballeros Road, Rolling
Hills, California, owner of Lot 10, Sunny Knolls
Tract, and Mr. William F. Losch, Jr., 35 Prospect
Avenue, Long Beach, California, owner of Lot 12,
Sunny Knolls Tract, appeared at said hearing in
opposition tc the application for a side yard
variance.
3. The Commission further finds that applicant intends
to construct a residence on said lot which residence
will be located as set forth on the plot plan
prepared by Neil S. Palmer for and on behalf of
applicants, which plot plan was received in
evidence as applicant's Exhibit I by the Commission,
and that said proposed construction would require the
use by applicant of a portion of the ten -foot side
yards extending along the northerly and southerly lines
of said lot for distances varying from three feet to
eight feet, all as shown on said exhibit.
4. The Commission further finds that the use of the side
yard as requested in the application for variance
should not be granted to applicant for the reason
that granting the same would reduce the distances between
residences as established by Section 1.31 of Ordinance
No. 33.
5. The Commission further finds that there are not extraordinary
circumstances or conditions which are applicable to the
proposed use of said side yard that do not apply generally
to all other property inthe vicinity of said real property
and that a variance as requested by applicant is not
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property
in ,the same vicinity but which is denied to the real
property owned by applicant.
6. The Commission further finds that the granting of a
variance as requested by applicant would be injurious to
the property and improvements located in the vicinity and
zone in which the property owned by applicant is located,
From the foregoing, it is concluded that the variance as requested
by applicant should be denied and it is therefore so ordered.
Dated: This 1st day of May, 1964.
Secretary
-2-
Chairman of the Planning Commission