Loading...
252, Increase the sq. footage of th, Resolutions & Approval Conditions• • BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of the Application ) ) of ) ) Zoning Case No. 252 Mr. Fred Lacy ) ) Lot 5-CRB 0 ) FINDINGS AND REPORT The application of Mr. Fred Lacy, Lot 5-CRB, Chesterfield .Ranchos, Tract B, for a Variance of Front Yard Requirements under ARTICLE III, Section 3.06 of Ordinance No. 169, and Extension of a Non -Conforming Use under ARTICLE V, Section 5.06•of Ordinance No. 33 came on for hearing on the 22nd day of April., 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. Fred Lacy, is the owner of that certain real property described as Lot 5-CRB located at 20 Chuckwagon Road. The Commission finds, further, 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, and that no comment, written or verbal, was received in opposition to the request, and that Mr. James Hawthorne, 22 Chuckwagon Road, telephoned and advised the Clerk that he had no objection to the request. II. The Commission finds that the applicant wishes to close. in an area between the existing house and the existing garage, which are located within the prescribed front yard set back. The Commission finds that the proposed enclosure would enlarge the kitchen and the. dining room and would not project. further into the, front yard than the existing residence. The Commission finds further that'other residences in the. area have approximately the same set back as the subject property. The Commission finds that' the request should be • • approved and a Variance of Front Yard Requirements and Extension of Non -Conforming Use should be granted in order to preserve substantial property rights in the same vicinity of zone, and that the granting of such variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, nor injurious to property in the same vicinity and zone. III. 0 From the foregoing it is concluded that a Variance of Front Yard Requirements and Extension of Non -Conforming Use should be granted to Mr. Lacy for a residence addition on Lot 5-CRB because of the limited area in which the residence can be improved, and to grant the applicant property rights enjoyed by other properties in the area, and it is, therefore, so ordered. This approval shall expire one year from the date of grant, not acted on. 41r C t irman, Plannin Commissi.on- retary, Planning Co