142, Extension of non-conforming si, 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 )
) ZONING CASE NO. 142
Mr. Fred Lacy )
Lot 5-CRB )
FINDINGS AND REPORT
The application. of Mr. Fred Lacy, Lot 5-CRB,Cheatettfield
Ranchos Tract, for a conditional use permit under Article III,
Section 3.07 Side Yard Requirements and Article V, Section 5.05,
Non -conforming Use, Ordinance No. 33 came on for hearing on the
19th day of August, 1975 in the Council Chambers of the Adminis-
tration Building, 2 Portuguse 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,
Chesterfield Ranchos 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 8.077
of Ordinance No. 33 of the City of Rolling Hills, California..
II.
The Commission further finds that Mr. James Hawthorne,
22 Chuckwagon Road, had presented pictures of the Lacy property to.
the Manager, and had stated that he did not object to the proposed
construction, but he wanted assurance that the broken fences on the
property would be removed or repaired and'Mr. Lacy said he had made
arrangements for a contractor to prepare an estimate for repairof
the fences.
III.
The Commission further finds that the original residence was
built prior to adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, and is located
16' from the property line, which constitutes an existing non -conforming
condition. The applicant requests the conditional use permit for the
extension of the existing non-conformance and permission to construct
an addition to the residence which would project four feet intothe
side yard, resulting in a 16' side yard on each side of the residence.
The applicant said further that topography of the land limits' what
can be done to provide the necessary expansion of living quarters.
The Commission finds, therefore, that.a conditional use permit should
be granted in order to preserve substantial property rights possessed
by other property in the same vicinity and zone, and that the granting
of such conditional use permit would not be materially detrimental to
the public welfare and injtirious to property in the same vicinity
and zone.
IV.
From .the foregoing it is concluded that a conditional use
permit should be granted under Article III, Section 3.07, Side Yard
Requirements and Article V, Section 5.05, Non -conforming Use, Ordinance
No. 33 to Mr. Fred Lacy, Lot 5-CRB, for construction of a residence
addition extending the existing line, projecting four feet into the
side .yard, resulting in a 16' side yard on each side of the residence,
and it is, therefore, so ordered.
/s/ William Field
Chairman, Planning Commission
Secretary, Planning Commission