86, To allow a tennis court to be , Resolutions & Approval Conditions:r
1M
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Application
of
Mr. Laurence Green
Lot 60 RH
ZONING CASE NO. 86
FINDING AND FORMAL REPORT
The application. of Mr. Laurence Green, Lot 60RH, Rolling Hills
Tract, for a variance of front yard requirements under Article III,
Section 3.06 of Ordinance No. 33 came on for hearing on the l8th day
of February, 1969 at the hour of 8:00 P.M. at the Administration
Building of the City of Rolling Hills, California, and the applicant,
having submitted evidence in support of his application, the Planning
Commission, being advised, now makes its Findings and Formal Report
as required by the Ordinances of the City of Rolling Hills, California.
I.
The Commission finds that the applicant, Mr. Laurence Green, is the
owner of that certain real property described as Lot 60 RH, Rolling
Hills Tract, located in the City of Rolling Hills, California, and that
notice of the public hearing in connection with said application was
given as required by Sections 8.06 and 8.07 of Ordinance No. 33 of the
City of Rolling Hills, California.
II .
The Commission further finds that no person appeared at said public
hearing in opposition to the application for a variance, and that no
evidence was received by the Commission in opposition thereto.
III .
The Commission further finds that request to locate a tennis court
in the front yard was made becuse it is the only location on the property
on which it could be built; further, because the home is located at the
intersection. of Hillside Land and Saddleback Road there are no residences
within several hundred feet of the proposed construction, and the nearest
structure is a stable, and thatgranting of a variance of front yard
requirements under Section. 3.06 of Article III, Ordinance No. 33 will
not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, nor injurious to
property in the same vicinity and zone and the variance should be
granted to applicant in order to preserve substantial property rights
possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone.
Iv.
From the foregoing it is concluded that a variance should be
granted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills to
Mr. Lativ.eoce Creea, Lot 60141, Rolling Rills Tract, in accordance with
the plot plan marked Exhibit I on file in these proceedings, and it is,
therefore, so ordered.
March II, 1969.
—Chairman, Planning Commissrarr
cretary, FraTaTing Cotassion: