HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07291986 - T.9 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTYs CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on July 29 , 1986 , by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, McPeak Torlakson .and Powers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None '
ABSTAIN: None
Decision on Appeal o :- and MAXINE L. WALDEN From the Board of
SUBJECT: Appeals Decision Denying their Request for LUP Application #2010-86 to
establish a Second Residence for Members of the Same Family in the Pleasant
Hill Area.
This Board on July 29, 1986 heard the above subject appeal and all persons who wished to
speak at that time.. Mr. Merle .L. Walden. spoke in support of his appeal and no one
appeared to speak in opposition. After closing the hearing, review of the staff report
and related materials and discussion of the matter, the Board indicated it could only
justify approving LUP Application #2010-86 and making the findings required for that
action (Ord. C. Section 26-2.008) if the applicants and owners dedicated the future
development rights for the property to the County and provided a declaration of
restrictions for this purpose. The involved document should limit the future use of the
property to a primary single-family residence (the "existing home) and a second residence
limited to use by the. family of those occupying the primary residence. Also, the Board
indicated it could only make these findings with the provision of the deed of development
rights and restrictions to ensure no subsequent division of the property because of the
Board's approval of this LUP #2010-86."
This Board .hereby approved LUP #2010-86. subject to the following conditions of approval
and findings:
1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the proposed second new residence,
the applicant" "shall-" submit a deed of development rights and declaration of restric-
tions. (in a ."form acceptable to the Community Development Department and County
Counsel ) which deed must first be approved (accepted) by the Board of Supervisors and
filed for recordation with . the. County Recorder. Upon recordation, the building
permits may thereafter be issued. The deed of development rights shall not allow any
further, division of the property.
2. Development shall be° generally as shown on the plot plans submitted with the applica-
tion and dated received January 22, 1986 by the Community Development Department
except as revised by these conditions of approval".
3. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the proposal for the exterior finish
and roof of the second residence shall be reviewed and approved by the Zoning
Administrator:
4. The only persons who may live in, occupy and use the second residence shall be
relatives within the third degree of consanquinity of the owners and occupants of the
primary residence on the property.
5. Comply with the requirements of the Sanitary District.
.6. Building permits are required.
7. Comply -with ordinance requirements for Park Dedication Fees.
8. Comply with drainage, road improvement, traffic and utility requirements as "follows:
A. -In accordance with Section 82-2.014 of .the County Ordinance Code, this develop-
ment shall conform to the requirements of Division 914 (Drainage) of the
Subdivision Ordinance.
2.
Based upon the foregoing, this Board hereby finds concerning LUP #2010-86:
1. That it concurs with the determination of the Community Development Department that
this application is categorically exempt, Class 3a, from CEQA requirements.
2. That the permit is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the
County because the additional proposed, a single family residence, is a use common in
the area.
3. That the permit does not adversely affect the orderly. ,development of property in the
County .because, it is in an old already largely developed for residential use.
4. That it does not adversely affect .the preservation of property values and the
protection of tax base in the County because the site is to be developed in a manner
that will create one additional substantial single- family residence.
5. That it does not adversely affect the policy and goals as set by the County's General .
Plan because the uses proposed are single family in nature per the General Plan
designation of the site as single family residential low density.
6. That it does not create a nuisance and/or enforcement problem within the neighborhood
because the existing as well as the second residence are to be used for single family
purposes and both have clear access to a public street.
7. It does not encourage marginal development within -the neighborhood because the
existing as well as the proposed residence are or are to be well built.
8. That special conditions and unique characteristics of the subject property and its
location or surroundings are, established because the lot is at two separate levels
and difficult to use as a single house site..
I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of
an action tiken and entered on the rrinutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
LTR.ILI ATTESTED: -
PHIL BAHEL�dk, C!,edof the Board
of Supervisors and County Administrator
By , oeputy
CC.: Community Development
County Counsel
County Administrator
Building Inspection
Public Works.
Merle' & Maxine Walden