Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA Resolution 154-443 - (2428 The Strand),. \. RESOLUTION B.Z.A. 154-443 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH GRANTING A SIDEYARD VARIANCE AND DENYING A FRONT SETBACK ENCROACHMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2428 STRAND, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Adjustments of the City of Hermosa Beach, at public hearings held on December 21, 1981 and January 4, 1982 in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, considered the request of Mr. and Mrs. Alex Lidow for permission to extend the front of their single family dwelling 5' into the required front yard setback and to main- tain the existing 2.35' sideyard with this addition; also to add a deck at the rear of the building with 2.35' sideyards; and WHEREAS, at said public hearings, the following facts were presented for consideration; that at the December 21 meeting the applicants requested a continuation to allow time to modify their request in order to mitigate the objections of their neighbors to the south; that at the January 4 meeting, they submitted revised plans and a letter from their immediate neighbor to the south indicating his objections had been satisfied with the new plans; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, the applicant stated they feel they have satisfied everyone's objections with their revision; they have brought the front back, so it does not extend beyond the existing eye- brows; they have curved the structure on the south so it would not infringe upon the view; that the purpose of the extension is to gain access to a downstairs living space; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, no one appeared to speak in opposition to the request, however, there is a petition signed by .17 people that was submitted at the first public hearing; and WHEREAS, after due consideration, it is the opinion of the Board of Zon- ing Adjustments that Part 1 of the variance request for the front set- back encroachment is not justified and that Part 2 is justified, with findings as follows: Findings for Part 1: 1. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved because the cir- cumstance of a usable space on the ground level in the front exists in many buildings in the northern part of the Strand; this usable space, not being connected to the house, is not an extraordinary circumstance; the additional encroachment into the front setback would apply to any major construction. 2. That the granting of such variance is not necessary for the preser- vation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question because this variance would not be necessary to provide the applicants with the same kind of rights enjoyed by others. 3. That the granting of such variance may be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located because the of the adjacent property do not necessarily support the application. -Continued - J PAGE 2 -RESOLUTION B.Z.A. 154-443 2428 STRAND Vote on Part 1 of the request: AYES: Comms. Cutler, Ebey, Toth; Chmn.·Moore · · NOES: Comms. Merrill, Williams ABSENT: Chmn. DeBellis Findings for Part 2: (deck addition at rear) 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved because it is within Code lot coverage; the house predates existing Code; similar variances have been granted by the Board in the past. 2. That the granting of such variance is necessary for the preser- vation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question because it would give the applicant usable exterior open space; second story decks are commonly found throughout the City. 3. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detri- mental to the public welfare or injurious to the property .or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located because the addition will not impinge on light, air, fire access; no one spoke in opposition at the public hearing, the existing building already exists with a nonconforming sideyard. 4. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan because there is no effect on the Gen- eral Plan. Vote on Part 2 of the request: AYES: Comms. Cutler, Ebey, Merrill, Toth, Williams NOES: Comm. Moore ABSENT: Chmn. DeBellis NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in view of the above findings of fact, the Board of Zoning Adjustments does hereby deny Part 1 of the variance request and grant Part 2 of the variance request. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution B.Z.A. 154-443 was adopted by the Board of Zoning Adjustments of the City of Hermosa Beach at a regular meeting held on the 4th day of January, 1982. Date ~7~?2- J ~ ~ ~<Jj~TING CHAIRMAN SECRETARY