HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06061986 - 2.2 .i • 2
TO: _ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, Costa
Director of Community Development
DATE: 10 March 1989 �,►�/
SUBJECT: APPEAL - Land Use Permit #2070-88, filed by JOHN ROLF HATTAM
(Applicant & Owner) - Kensington area. (S. D. I )
Parcel #572-160-027.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Deny the appeal and uphold the County Planning Commission's
decision to deny the request for a second residence.
2. Find the environmental documentation for the project as being
complete and adequate.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
The „applicant/owner submitted a request to build a new residence on
the site, keeping the existing 600-sq.ft. residence as a second
unit.
After public testimony, -the County Zoning Administrator denied the
request on October 17, 1988. The applicant/owner appealed that
decision to the County Planning Commission/Board of Appeals, which
denied the appeal on January 10, 1989, after 'taking testimony. The
applicant/owner subsequently appealed this decision to your Board.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGMA
4:-.
ACTION OF BOARIS ON June 6, 1989 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X
OTHER _
The Board of Supervisors on May 16, 1989 deferred to this date
the decision on the appeal of John Rolf Hattam from the decision of
the Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals upholding the decision
of the Zoning Administrator on the request by John Rolf Hattam to
build a second residence on a site, retaining the existing 600 square
foot residence (Land Use Permit 2070-88) in the Kensington area.
Karl Wandry, Community Development Department, summarized the
matter before the Board and reiterated the staff recommendation for
denial of the appeal.
Supervisor Powers commented on the concerns of the neighbors and
requested other Board members comments.
Supervisor Schroder advised that he had visited the proposed site
and had looked for overwhelming reason to overcome the denials. He
commented he could not find a reason to do so. Mr. Schroder moved to
deny the appeal.
The Board discussed the matter.
On recommendation of Supervisor Schroder, IT IS BY THE BOARD
ORDERED that recommendations 1 and 2 are APPROVED.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X I I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
_ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES:` NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: - ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc: Community Development Department, ATTESTED June 6, 1989
Attn: Arthur Beresford PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
John' Rolf Hattam, Applicant THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AN COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY ° , DEPUTY