Loading...
179, Install an inground pool, CorrespondenceCuy ol R0fA4 Mr. Yu Ping Liu 39 Crest Road West Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 ' PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 (213) 377.1521 August 24, 1987 Re: Screen Fence at 3 Buckboard Lane, Rolling Hills, California On July 2, 1987, I sent a letter to you regarding the violation of conditions which were established with the granting of a variance on your property at 3 Buckboard Lane (Zoning Case No. 179). That letter recited the requirement that a 36 foot long, 6 foot high grapestake fence was to be located on the northern property line between 3 Buckboard Lane and the neighboring property at 7 Buckboard Lane. The purpose of the grapestake fence was to provide a visual screen related to the construction of a swimming pool at 3 Buckboard Lane. Recently, I performed a site investigation of the progress of my request. I observed that a fence has been constructed at 3 Buckboard Lane. However, the fence does not comply with the requirements of the variance condition for a screening fence. The fence is not 36 feet long, it is not made of grapestake material, and it appears to be higher than 6 feet. Hence, I am informing you that the fence does not meet the required condition of Zoning Case No. 179. I would request that you place a fence in the appropriate location of a size and building material type of that which is set forth in the conditions of the granting of the variance. I would request that you comply with the conditions that this letter addresses within 15 days. If you have any questions regarding this material, please contact me. Sincerely, (Tt Terrence L. langer City Manager ku BENJAMINJ.CHAU.0W.D. 7 Buckboard Lane Rolling Hills, CA 90274 V �2�_/�77��_ MR. T. BELANGER, CITY MANAGER, ROLLING HILLS, CA 2 PORTUGUESE BEND RD. ROLLING HILLS, CA. 90274 RE: SCREEN FENCE AT 3 BUCKBOARD LANE, R.H.CA. DEAR MR. BELANGER, THANK YOU FOR YOUR EFFORTS ON ZONING CASE 179 AND FORWARDING A COPY OF YOUR LETTER TO MR.LIU OF 7/2/87. I HAVE ATTEMPTED TO CALL YOUR OFFICE ON TWO OCCASIONS WITHOUT SUCCESS SINCE MR. LIU REPLACED PART OF THE FENCE. SINCE IT IS SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT TO COMMUNICATE TO YOU THROUGH YOUR SECRETARY, I FOUND IT NECESSARY TO WRITE TO YOU. IN REVIEW OF ZONING CASE 179 THE COMMITTEE SUGGESTED A FENCE BECAUSE OF INADEQUATE SPACE FOR PLANTING. THE PLANTING THAT NOW EXISTS ON THE EASEMENT WAS PLANTED BY ME SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOLDING THE HILLSIDE SINCE A LARGE STORM —DRAIN FROM BUCKBOARD LANE EMPTIES THERE. SOMETIME AGO WHEN MR. LUI HAD HIS FENCE IN PLACE, HE REQUESTED PERMISSION TO TRIM THE BUSH AS NEEDED TO PRESERVE HIS VIEW. TO THIS REQUEST I HAPPILY COMPLIED. IT HAS BEEN HIS PRACTICE TO TRIM THE BUSHES ON A REGULAR BASIS UNTIL HIS HOUSE WAS PLACED ON ' SALE ABOUT 1 YEAR AGO. I WAS COMPLETELY UNAWARE THAT HE WAS USING THIS BUSH AS AN EXCUSE FOR NOT REPLACING THE FENCE. MR. LUI VERY CONVENIENTLY NEGLECTED TO INFORM YOU OF THIS DETAIL. IN ESSENCE, THIS BUSH IS NORMALLY KEPT SO LOW THAT IT PROVIDES NO SCREENING AT ALL. .��� . - -. - ' ' ` ` ' � � � l..� lN[EN7 OF THE 'F�NCE WA� TU P��(/lDE S�REE�ING BUl� MORE IMPORTANTO O PROVIDE SOME NOISE A IIMENT. IT IS TRUE THERE ARE NONE OF OUR WINDOWS FACING MR. LIU'S HOUSE, BUT IT QUITE EMBARRESSING TO WALK ON OUR EAST DECK AND STARE AT THEIR POOL AND THEIR SWIMMERS. I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT MY MASTER BEDROOM WINDOW IS ADJACENT TO THE POOL AND WE CAN HEAR EVEN NORMAL CONVERSATION. PLEASE BE REMINDED THAT THE POOL WAS BUILT UP TO THE EASEMENT LINE AND FOR THIS REASON TOO, THAT A FENCE WAS MADE A REQUIREMENT. IN SUMMARY, I ASK THAT MR~ LUI COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. I ANVITE YOU TO MAKE A FIELD TRIP AND VIEW THE - CONDITIONS FROM MY EAST DECK IF YOU WOULD FIND THIS HELPFUL. IF AFTER REVIEW, YOU FIND THAT THE PRESENT FENCE IS IN COMPLIANCE, I REQUEST THAT THIS LETTER BE PRESENTED TO THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING, THANKING YOU, AND HOPING TO HEAR FROM YOU AT YOUR EARLY CONVENIENCE, I REMAIN, , RESPECTFULLY YOURS, . B.J. CHAU, MD / � • IF C'ry / ePf.•ny �l,•ff, GORDANA SWANSON Mayor JODY MURDOCK Mayor Pro Tem THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Councilman GINNY LEEUWENBURGH Councilwoman GODFREY PERNELL Councilman Yu Ping Liu P. 0. Box 2561 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274 ia3 • IL INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUiSi SEND ROAD ROLLING WILLS. CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 July 2, 1987 Re: Screen Fence at 3 Buckboard Lane, Rolling Hills, California Dear Mr. Liu: It has been several weeks since I last communicated with you regarding your violation of the conditions of the variance granted by the approval of Zoning Case #179. The condition that has been violated is that, which requires a 36'-long and 6'-high grapestake fence. The purpose of the grapestake fence is to provide a visual screen between your property at 3 Buckboard Lane and the neighboring property at 7 Buckboard Lane. You have indicated in correspondence to the City that the trees and bushes, located on your property, have grown to the point where they would provide a visual screen sufficient to satisfy the intent of the screening fence condition, as established in Zoning. Case #179. Since you have not proceeded with your request (January 9, 1987) to have the aforestated condition reevaluated, I must once again indicate to you that you must construct a 6'-high by 36'-long grapestake fence between your property and the property at 7 Buckboard Lane, as required by Zoning Case 179. You have thirty (30) days in which to comply with this directive. If you do not comply with this directive, the City of Rolling Hills will have no alternative but to refer this matter to the District Attorney for prosecution. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me. Sincerely, Terrence L. Belange City Manager ku City 0/ leolliny JUL GODFREY PERNELL Mayor GORDANA SWANSON Mayor Pro Tom THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Councilman GINNY LEEUWENBURGH Councilwoman JODY MURDOCK Councilwoman Mr. Yu Ping Liu P.O. Box 2561 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 (213) 377.1321 March 10, 1987 Re: Screening Fence, 3 Buckboard Lane, Rolling Hills Dear Mr. Liu, I have received your letter dated February 9, 1987, regarding your request to modify the Variance which was granted (Zoning Case No. 179) in 1977. In order to process the Variance modification, you will have to complete a Variance application form and remit a $500 processing fee. When we have received the application for a Variance, we will schedule the matter for a public hearing, pursuant to the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. If you have any questions regarding this, please contact me. Sin9erely, /ci ,/?g- Terrence L. Belange City Manager TLB:gb 411 • GORDANA SWANSON Mayor JODY MURDOCK Mayor Pro Tem THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Councilman GINNY LEEUWENBURGH Councilwoman GODFREY PERNELL Councilman Yu Ping Liu P. 0. Box 2561 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 July 2, 1987 Re: Screen Fence at 3 Buckboard Lane, Rolling Hills, California Dear Mr. Liu: It has been several weeks since I last communicated with you regarding your violation of the conditions of the variance granted by the approval of Zoning Case #179. The condition that has been violated is that which requires a 36'-long and 6'-high grapestake fence. The purpose of the grapestake fence is to provide a visual screen between your property at 3 Buckboard Lane and the neighboring property at 7 Buckborad Lane. You have indicated in correspondence to the City that the trees and bushes, located on your property, have grown to the point where they would provide a visual screen sufficient to satisfy the intent of the screening fence condition, as established in Zoning Case #179. Since you have not proceeded with your request (January 9, 1987) to have the aforestated condition reevaluated, I must once again indicate to you that you must construct a 6'-high by 36'-long grapestake fence between your property and the property at 7 Buckboard Lane, as required by Zoning Case 179. You have thirty (30) days in which to comply with this directive. If you do not comply with this directive, the City of Rolling Hills will have no alternative but to refer this matter to the District Attorney for prosecution. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me. Sincerely, Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager ku Benjamin J. Chau 7 Buckboard Lane Rolling Hills, CA 90274 April 27, 1987 Mr. Belanger; City Manager Cityiof Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mr. Belanger, Pursuant to our frequent discussions regarding the fence that was removed on or about 08/01/86.on the adjoining property from us at 3 Buckboard Lane, I ask your expeditious action on this matter. More than adequate time has been allowed to have the fence replaced. As you are aware this property has been up for sale since 08/86. Research of City Council minutes will bear out that the fence issue was extensively discussed overan.extensive span of time by the City Council when Mr. Brezinski was the owner. It was only when District Attorney enforcement was threatened that the fence was constructed. Records will reveal that the construction of the Brezinski's swimming pool was permitted via a variance since it was built to the easement line. The variance was awarded subject to the condition that a fence be placed on the easement line. Your office has requested Mr. Liu (present owner of 3 Buckboard Lane) to replace the fence without compliance for at least 6 months. In view of this, I contend that re -presenting this issue before the City Council would be unreasonable and redundant and that this merely serves as a ploy to burden the misinformed buyer of this property. Perhaps, Mr. Liu might be advised that not informing a prospective buyer of noncompliance of the•conditons of an existing variance is a possible basis to void a purchase transaction., I ask that you or if necessary,the City Council act swiftly on this issue to avoid an future disharmony between my new neighbor. Thanking you,and hoping to hear from your at your earliest convenience, I remain, Respectfully yours, Benjamin J. Chau cc: City Council of Rolling Hills Grp l ea!! 9 JJi//J GODFREY PERNELL Mayor GORDANA 8WANSON Mayor Pro Tam THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Councilman GINNY LEEUWENBURGH Councilwoman JODY MURDOCK Councilwoman Mr. Yu Ping Liu P.O. Box 2561 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE REND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 (213) 377.1521 March 10, 1987 Re: Screening Fence, 3 Buckboard Lane, Rolling Hills Dear Mr. Liu, I have received your letter dated February 9, 1987, regarding your request to modify the Variance which was granted (Zoning Case No. 179) in 1977. In order to process the Variance modification, you will have to complete a Variance application form and remit a $500 processing fee. When we have received the application for a Variance, we will schedule the matter for a public hearing, pursuant to the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. If you have any questions regarding this, please contact me. Singerely, ita Terrence L. Belange City Manager TLB:gb • February 9, 1987 T.L. Belanger, City Manager City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Subject: Perimeter Fence Required to Screen Pool at 3 Buckboard Lane, Rolling Hills, California 90274 Dear Mr. Belanger, I received your letters dated October 6 and January 27 regarding the screening fence required on subject property, and have talked to Dr. Chau and Mrs. Cunningham about the Variance governing the fence. During the time since the Variance was granted and the pool built (1977), the bushes and trees on both sides of the easement have grown to maturity. I recommend that the Planning Commission re-examine the requirement for a screening fence along the easement, and hope my request will be favorably considered in view of the following: 1) I believe Dr. Chau's privacy is not invaded - the trees and bushes provide a natural screen. 2) The trees and bushes will not intrude into the easement with proper gardening maintenance. 3) The City of Rolling Hills will benefit without a 6 foot fence - the view of the landscape from the trail, road, and adjoining properties is attractive. I understand that as owner I am responsible for the stipulations of the Variance. However, considering the change in circumstances since it was granted, I believe this case merits a closer look and request that the Planning Commission revisit the site where the fence is required in order to better evaluate this situation. I look forward to your reply; I can be reached at (213) 970-5536 during business hours, or at home at 377-4643. Sincerely, Yu -Ping Lou P.O. Box 2561 Rolling Hills, CA 90274 12.C..►'t,.e..;.\...Titt.ti ;ti::,:n:..: '+s.�',": Y': rK d.Ci�::i..a�l:S.•r.lrca9 c" .. "' - ".�J:+:,: .".v�ui.'v.!L"7t'reyh.i:.L'�rYcy�""rwo s.`:.r `�i,w'.S":Yl'•:wY' .Y°C :i rylZ.': M+1r•.: �, o Cu, o/ RO/&n y Jhff6 GODFREY PERNELL Mayor GORDANA SWANSON Mayor Pro Tem THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Councilman GINNY LEEUWENBURGH Councilwoman JODY MURDOCK Councilwoman INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 January 27, 1987 CERTIFIED MAIL P 257 270 339 Mr. Yu Ping Liu P.O. Box 2561 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274 Re: 3 Buckboard Lane, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mr. Liu, On October 6, 1986, I communicated with you regarding the screening fence that you removed at your property located at 3 Buckboard Lane, Rolling Hills. As I indicated to you in that letter, the screening fence was and is a requirement, as set forth in Zoning Case No. 179. The referenced zoning case granted a Variance for the encroachment into the side yard setback. As a condition of the granting of that Variance, a screening fence 36 feet long and 6 feet high was required. The fence has not been replaced, as required and requested. The Variance granted is a covenant that runs with the land. Regardless of ownership, the conditions established at the time of the granting of the Variance are perpetual. Your failure to replace the required fence will result in a recension of the Variance. If the Variance is rescinded, the swimming pool that was allowed to be built with the granting of the Variance would, therefore, have to be removed. Therefore, I would strongly suggest that you, as expeditiously as possible, replace the 36 feet long and 6 feet high grapestake fence as required and agreed to in Zoning Case No. 179. errence L. Belange City Manager 1...d..n.Ir:...:..1�;,l.�].'f t:v;ita.n o.:..t O.-41.4V••fr.rV.isrfVL+..V`ra.r.d.s1.e.+setz4,. lw4a �L�L�A.7 - r s • Cli, o` Ro llin y Jhfh GODFREY PERNELL Mayor GORDANA SWANSON Mayor Pro Tem THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Councilman GINNY LEEUWENBURGH Councilwoman JODY MURDOCK Councilwoman INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1321 October 6, 1986 Mr. Yu Ping Liu P.O. Box 7561 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274 Dear Mr. Liu, It has come to the City of Rolling Hills' attention that the screening fence that was required to be placed between 3 Buckboard Lane and 7 Buckboard Lane, pursuant to Zoning Case #179 (side -yard variance) has been removed. The screening fences required as a condition of the granting of the variance for encroachment into the side -yard, that condition is perpetual. Under no circumstances is that fence to be unilaterally removed. The only manner in which that fence can be appropriately removed would be through a reconsideration of the condition(s) by the Planning Commission and the City Council. If the fence has been removed, and not replaced, this is to inform you that the 36' long, and 6' high grapestake fence must be placed in the location in which it was originally required. If you have any questions regarding this, please contact me. Sincerely, Terrence L.•Belanger City Manager TLB:gb To: ejty or' RoLU tike..s- �d Lt-/ /' - C74. 9902 74- From: Zoning Enforcement Section 'Department of Regional Planning Date: `74f Inspe tion F'le No. i "[ -"- /i7 -S / Subject: /%6X/41 44Se /14• l7`I- FAIL-v.rr tb 5'tea/ ?Poo - Zone l4 " / Zoned. Dis Li ict Address: c/Cfef3D/1L-A— Complies, not in violation of Zoning Ordinance. CUP/Variance filed Complies, violation corrected. Violation of Section day order to comply issued to DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL PLANNING 320 West Temple Street LAngel,e, California 90012 By 31-02-11/76 pning Enforcement Agent • • City 0/ Rolling INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 April 4, 1979 Mr. Janusz Brzezinski 3 Buckboard Lane Rolling Hills, Calif. 90274 Inspection File Rolling Hills No. 1 Dear Sir: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 In response to a recent complaint regarding a violation of Zoning Case No. 179, an inspection has been made at 3 Buckboard Lane in zone RAS-1, City of Rolling Hills. This inspection disclosed that the premises at the above address is maintained in violation of Zoning Case No. 179 in that the required fencing requirements for screening the pool from the road and trail have not been provided. The property as currently maintained is not a permitted use in zone RAS-1 and is in violation of Section 6.05, City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance. Please consider this an order to comply with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance within ten (10) days after receipt of this letter. Failure to comply as requested will cause this matter to be referred to the District Attorney with the request that a criminal complaint be filed. Any inquiry regarding this matter may be addressed to the Department of Regional Planning, 320 W. Temple Street, Los Angeles, Calif. 90012; Attention: Rudy Lackner, Supervisor, Zoning Enforcement, telephone 974-6453. If you desire to speak directly with the investigator, John D. Calas, Zoning Enforcement Agent, please call before 10:00 A. M. Very truly yours, CITY OF/bLLI1tG J Schwarze, Division Chief , Z. ng Administration Division For Teena Clifton, City Manager TC JS:RL JDC:rs • • CITY Or Iv,- HfLES By 6 December 8, 1978 Mr. Janusz Brzezinski 3 Buckboard Lane Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mr. Brzezinski: This will confirm our telephone conversation regarding the conditions of approval of a variance for a swimming pool on your property which required a fence around the pool area. When we discussed this matter by telephone you indicated that since the Chau residence has been built the need to obscure the pool has changed, as the Chau residence has no windows on that side, and further, that construction of a fence would be detrimental to the view from your pool area. As I advised you, if you wish to have the requirement for a fence removed, you must write to the City Council asking for relief, and request a personal appearance before the Council. It may be that the Council would ask the Planning Com- mission to review the matter and make a recommendation. I would recommend that you initiate the request rather than have it come from the staff, in order to avoid the implication that you have failed to comply with requirements of the conditions imposed and are in violation of the approval. Sincerely, Teena Clifton City Manager TC:ma