HomeMy WebLinkAboutZAV 1992-12 RESOLUTION N0. ZAV-92-12
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A VARIANCE j
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a variance was filed with
the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on March 30, 1992, by
Corazon C. Van Hecke, and
WHEREAS, said application requested permission to reduce the required
rear yard setback from 20 feet to 6 feet in order to legalize an existing
sunroom at 671 Crescent Drive in the R-1-P4 zone, and
i
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing ~
on said conditional use permit application and notice of said hearing,
together with its purpose, was given by its publication-in a newspaper of
general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500
feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to the
hearing, and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised,
namely 7:00 p.m., July 8, 1992, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue,
before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed, and
WHEREAS, the project is exempt from environmental review as a Class 3
exemption.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION finds as
follows:
1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any
act of the owner exists. Said hardship may include practical .difficulties in
developing the property for the needs of the owner consistent with the
regulations of the zone; but in this context, personal, family or financial
difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and neighboring violations are not
hardships justifying a variance. Further, a previous variance can never have
set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on its individual
merits.
The property is essentially rectangular and level, and there is
nothing unique about its relationship to surrounding properties. The
approved dwelling contains 2,963 sq. ft. and an open patio cover may
be added. It is not a hardship that the property is less than 6,000
sq. ft. since neighboring parcels have comparable areas. Any
financial burden suffered by an "innocent" party in complying with
the Cit's zoning ordinance does not meet the definition of a hardship
justifying a variance.
2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the
same zoning district and 'in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if
granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed
by his neighbors.
There is nothing inherent in the property which deprives this parcel
of the property rights enjoyed by others in the same zone and
vicinity. The encroachment would constitute a special privilege of
the recipient, not enjoyed by her neighbors.
3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial
detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the purposes of
this chapter or the public interest.
Setbacks serve to provide visual relief, as well as meeting health
and safety requirements. A structure which extends so close to
property lines reduced on-site open space and presents a crowded
appearance, to the detriment of adjacent properties and in conflict i
with the purposes of this chapter and the public interest. ~
i
4. That the authorizing of such variance will not adversely affect
the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
The authorizing or denial of this variance will not adversely affect
the General, Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental
agency.
CONSIDERED AND DENIED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION Of CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA,
this 8th day of July, 1992, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Commissioners Carson, Fuller, Casillas, Decker, Martin and Tuchscher
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Susan Fuller, Chairperson
ATTEST:
3an~1~ Seci etar~
WPC 0406p
-2-