139, Relocation of a fence and cons, Resolutions & Approval Conditionsgr
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Application
of
Dr. E. D. Williams
Lot 996-RH
ZONING CASE NO. 139
FINDINGS AND REPORT
The application of Dr. E. D. Williams, Lot 996-RH, Rolling
Hills Tract, for a conditional use permit under Article III,
Section 3.06 Front Yard Requirements, Ordinace No. 33 came on for
hearing on the 15th day of April 1975 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, Dr. E. D. Williams,
is the owner of that certain real property described as Lot 996-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, and that no comment,
written or oral, had been received in favor of or opposition to the
request.
The Commission further finds that the applicant requests the
conditional use permit for construction of a greenhouse in the front
yard in the location originally approved for a stable which had not
been constructed. The applicant stated that there is a road on the
property which would provide access to the location and the green-
house would not be visible to any residence in Rolling Hills. Further,
the applicant stated that other locations on the property on which a
small structure could be built are not suitable for a greenhouse, as
they are too shady, and would require removal of a number of trees.
The applicant stated that when the residence was built a number of
years ago a stable site had been approved in the front yard, but the
stable was not built and the approval had expired. The Commission
finds that because of the imminent widening of Palos Verdes Drive
North, resulting in vulnerability of a greenhouse in the location
chosen, which is not visible from the residence, the application
should be denied.
IV.
From the foregoing it is concluded that a conditional use
permit under Article III, Section 3.06, Front Yard Requirements,
Ordinance No. 33 for construction of a greenhouse in the front yard
should not be granted to Dr. E. D. Williams, Lot 996-RH, and it is,
therefore, so ordered.
1/4,07
dretary, Planning Cqj fission
/s/ William C. Field
Chairman, Planning Commission