Loading...
36, Permit swimming pool to extend, Resolutions & Approval Conditionsr • 1 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, COUNTY OF,LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 In the Matter of the Application 3 of 4 JOHN N. HEATER, 5 Lot 24, . Eastfield (R.S. 58-6,10) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ZONING CASE NO. 36 FINDINGS AND FORMAL The application of John N. Heater, for side yard variances, came on for hearing day of July, 1963, at the hour of 8:00 P.M., REPORT Lot 24, Eastfield, on the twenty-third at the City Hall of the City of Rolling H41s, California, and the applicant having submittedevidencein support of his application, and the Planning Commission being advised, now makes its Findings and Formal'Report as required by the Ordinances of the City of Rolling Hills, California. • The Commission finds that the applicant, John N. Heater, is the owner of that gertain real property described as Lot 24, Eastfield, located in the City of Rolling Hills, California, and that notice of the public hearing in connection with said appli- cation was given as required by Sections 8.06 and 8.07 of Ordinance No. 33, of the City of Rolling Hills, California. II. That no person appeared at said public hearing in opposition to the application for variances and that no evidence was received by the Commission in opposition thereto. -1- The Commission further finds that the proposed residence addition of applicant is to be located ten (10) 'and one-half feet from the South property line of said Lot instead of twenty (20) foot setback as required by said Zoning Ordinance, and further that the proposed swimming pool to be located fourteen (14) feet from the North property line of said Lot instead of the required twenty foot setback as required by said Zoning Ordinance, and further findd that the variances should be granted to applicant in order to preserve substantial property rights possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, and that the granting of such variances will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which applicant's property is located, and that there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions by reasons of physical location and terrain of said Lot 24, which do not apply generally to other property in the same vicinity and zone. IV. From the foregoing it is concluded that variances should be granted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills to John N. Heater of Lot 24 of Eastfield in accordance with the Plot Plans marked Exhibit I and Exhibit II on file in these proceedings, and it is, therefore, so ordered. Dated: August 1, 1963. ecretary,GPlanning Commission Chairman, Planning Commission -2-