367, Requesting to meet the side ya, 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 )
Dr. & Mrs. Mohan Bhasker )
Lot 31-CF )
Zoning Case No. 367
FINDINGS AND REPORT
The application of Dr. & Mrs. Mohan Bhasker, Lot 31-CF,
Rolling Hills Tract, for a Variance under Section 17.32.010 of the
City of Rolling Hills Municipal Code, came for hearing on the 16th
day of August 1988, the 30th day of August 1988 and the 20th day of
September 1988, in the Council Chambers of the Administration
Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. The
Planning Commission, after being properly advised, now makes its
Findings and Report as required by the Municipal Code of the City of
Rolling Hills, California.
I.
The Commission finds that the applicants, Dr. & Mrs. Mohan
Bhasker, are the owners of that certain real property described as
Lot 31-CF, located at 24 Chuckwagon Road in the City of Rolling
Hills, and that notice of the public hearing in connection with said
application was given as required by Section 17.32.080 of the
Municipal Code of the City of Rolling Hills, California. The
Commission finds, further, that verbal comment, was received in
support of the request. Further, there was written comment in
opposition to the request.
II.
The Commission finds that the applicants have requested a
Variance from Section 17.16.070 minimum side yard setback requirement
of 20 feet. The property is a nonconforming lot of .709 net acres
(30,900 sq. ft.) in size, which is located in the RAS - 1 zone
(43,560 sq. ft.). The lot has conforming side yard setbacks.
Page Two
The applicants have requested an
northerly
southerly
additions
northerly
minimum side yard setback
minimum side yard setback
to the main building. The
side yarad setback would
11'.0" encroachment into the
and 3'.0" encroachment into the
for the purpose of constructing
encroachment of 11'.0" into the
result in a minimum side yard
setback of 9'.0". The encroachment of 3'.0" into the southerly side
yard setback would result in a minimum side yard setback of 17'.0".
The applicants indicate that the proposed improvements to the
existing residence and property are most logically expanded within
the established building pad
the granting of the Variance
property as others in the
area. Therefore, the applicants request
so that they may have the same rights to
same vicinity and zone, which would
otherwise be denied if they were not able to fully utilize the
existing building pad area.
The applicants assert that there are
significant topographical and physical conditions which exist on the
property, which impinge upon the applicants' ability to fully utilize
their property, without damaging the environment. The applicants
assert that a Variance should be
substantial property rights in the
the granting of such Variance would
the public welfare, nor injurious
and zone.
granted in order to preserve
same vicinity and zone, and that
not be materially detrimental to
to property in the same vicinity
From the foregoing, it is concluded that a Variance should be:
1. Denied as to the request for encroachment into the
northerly and southerly side yard setbacks for the purpose of adding
to the main building. The Planning Commission finds that:
• •
Page Three
A. There are no exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances applicable to the property and not
applicable to other similar properties in the same
zone that prevent the owners from making use of the
property to the same extent enjoyed by similar
properties. The applicants have not met their burden
of identifying and the Commission finds that there
exists no physical feature of the property that makes
use of the property difficult or impracticable without
a variance;
B. The proposed encroachment into the side yard would
constitute a major incursion into the setback and
would create a special privilege totally unjustified
by the factual circumstances. The Zoning Ordinance
allows for characteristics of property so as to give a
property owner the same rights as possessed by neigh-
boring properties; in this case the variance would
allow the the applicants to develop significantly into
their side yard without justification, a circumstance
that would give them a privilege not enjoyed by
others. The purpose of a variance is to provide re-
lief from an unusual condition of property which makes
reasonable use difficult when ordinary standards are
applied; the fact that a variance suits their plans,
does not mean that its denial will deprive applicants
of reasonable use or enjoyment of their property; and
C. The purpose of the side yard setback is to provide
residential properties with an emergency access,
normal/usual access, and open space unencumbered by
structures in the side yard of their homes.
• •
Page Four
This property possesses conforming side yards and
despite its existing physical development, has
additional room within the setbacks to expand the
existing residence. Grant of the variance would
be inconsistent with the very purpose of the
setback requirement without justification. Grant
of the variance would provide the applicants
with a privilege not accorded other property owners
with exactly the same physical circumstances, will be
detrimental to the principles of sound planning, in-
consistent with the goals of the zoning ordinance and
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare.
It is, therefore, so ordered.
/s/ Allan Roberts
Chairman, Planning Commission
/s/ Terrence L. Belanger
Secretary, Planning Commission