1991-13
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. OL-91-013
A RESOLUTION OF THE OLIVENHAIN
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD DENYING A
VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE REQUIRED 10' SIDE YARD SETBACKS
FOR AN EXISTING LEGAL NON-CONFORMING LOT SIZE
PROPERTY IN THE RR-2 ZONE
TO BE REDUCED TO 5' ON BOTH SIDES
FOR PROPERTY BEING LOT 68, BLOCK 42, COLONY OF OLIVENHAIN,
CITY OF ENCINITAS, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 287,
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO
COUNTY ON AUGUST 21, 1885,
COMMONLY KNOWN AS 563 RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD
(CASE NO. 91-084-V; PATRICIA A. ROSKOWSKI)
WHEREAS, Patricia A. Roskowski, applied for a Variance to
allow the required 10' side yard setbacks for an existing legal
non-conforming lot size property in the RR-2 zone to be reduced to
5' on both sides, for the purpose of constructing a single family
dwelling unit of approximately 20' in width, as required by Chapter
30.78 Variances, of the City of Encinitas Zoning Ordinance;
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application by
the Olivenhain Community Advisory Board on August 6, 1991, and all
persons desiring to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, evidence was submitted and considered to include
without limitation:
a.
Site plans, floor plans, and elevations dated May 2, and
May 1, 1991 respectively and received by the City of
Encinitas on May 10, 1991, which were submitted by the
applicant;
Written information submitted with the application;
Oral testimony from staff, applicant, and public made a
part of the record at said public hearing;
b.
c.
LN/43-338wp (7/31/91)
4
.
.
.
d.
CAB staff report (91-084-V) dated July 31, 1991 which is
on file in the Department of Planning and Community
Development; and
Additional written documentation.
e.
NOW THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED by the Olivenhain Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that the Variance is hereby
DENIED subject to the following findings:
A.
No variance shall be granted if the inability to enjoy the
privilege enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under
identical zoning classification:
1.
Could be avoided by an alternate development plan;
which would be of less significant impact to the
site and adjacent properties than the project
requiring a variance.
2.
Is self-induced as a result of an action taken by
the property owner or the owner's predecessor;
3.
Would allow such a degree of variation as to
consti tute a rezoning or other amendment to the
zoning code; or
4.
Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of any
private or public nuisance.
Evidence:
All findings cannot be made to grant the variance since there
is an alternate development plan available that would not need
the variance, that being the construction of a 10' wide house;
and the variance was self-induced because the applicant and
her brother originally purchased two lots and subsequently
deeded one lot to each of themselves. These two adjacent lots
could have been merged in order to allow for the construction
of a standard size dwelling for the RR-2 zone since there
would be at leat 8400 sq. ft. of lot area rather than the 4200
sq. ft. in each single lot.
LN/43-338wp (7/31/91)
5
.
.
.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this
following vote, to wit:
Ayes:
6th day of August,
1991,
Boardmembers Perkins, Post, and Schafer
Nays:
None
Absent:
Boardmembers Du Vivier and Van Slyke
Abstain:
None
ATTEST:
LN/43-338wp (7/31/91)
6
by the
of the