HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06041996 - D6 r i
D.6
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on June 4, 1996, by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Bishop, DeSaulnier, and Torlakson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Smith
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Land Use Permit #95-2023
The Board of Supervisors considered a letter received on May 23, 1996, from
Homer-and Lynn Bryant requesting that the Board reconsider its May 7, 1996,
decision denying their application for land use permit #95-2023 for a second
residential unit in the Walnut Creek area.
After discussing the request, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the request
of Homer and Lynn Bryant for reconsideration of the Board's May 7, 19961
decision is DENIED.
cc: Contra Costa County Planning Commission (via CDD)
Homer and Lynn Bryant 6/la- (f 1W
County Counsel
hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown
A 27.
EIOR,Clerk of the
and I Adme
1
Y D
~; \*d B
' RECEIVED
CONTRA COSTA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 10 rr
651 PINE ST.
MARTINEZ, CA. 94553-0095 MAY 2 3 1996
CLERK BOARD OF SUPEiiV S,—v�
RE• LUP # 952023 CONTRA COSTA U_.�
DEAR SUPERVISORS,
WE RECENTLY RETAINED COUNSEL AND COUNSEL INFORMED US THAT THE
DECISION OF DENIAL FOR OUR REQUEST FOR A LAND USE PERMIT FOR A
SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNIT APPEARED TO BE ARBITRARY. THEREFORE
PLEASE CONSIDER THIS OUR REQUEST FOR A RECONSIDERATION BY THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
REGARDING THE FINDINGS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD:
THE 2ND UNIT, A 2 BEDROOM (956 SQ.FT. ) OCCUPIED BY 2 ADULTS WOULD
NOT CREATE MORE OF A THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH & SAFETY
THAN PRESENTLY CREATED BY MRS. DAVIS' RECITALS WHICH DRAW BETWEEN
10 — 20 CARS PARKING ON MONTECILLO COURT, JULIANNE COURT AND
MONTECILLO DRIVE. THIS HAPPENS OFTEN, 2 JUST IN ONE WEEK.
NO EVIDENCE TO INDICATE A NUISANCE AND/OR ENFORCEMENT PROBLEM IN
THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE CREATED BECAUSE ,THE OWNERS RESPECT THE;
LAW.
TWO LEGAL 2ND UNITS EXISTING NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF MONTECILL0
DR. AND TICE VALLEY BLVD. HAVE NOT CAUSED THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF
MARGINAL DEVELOPMENT AND THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THE PROPOSED
2ND UNIT WOULD.
THE PROPOSED 2ND UNIT IS ARCHITECTURALLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE
PRIMARY. RESIDENCE BECAUSE THE COLORS, MATERIALS, DESIGN TRIMS,
WINDOWS, ROOF, ROOF PITCH, AND OTHER EXTERIOR PHYSICAL FEATURES
ARE EXACTLY THE SAME. THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE IS SIMILAR IN THESE
SAME FEATURES TO OTHER HOMES EXISTING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE NEIGHBORS LIVING ON THE COURT ARE MAKING A MOCKERY OF THE
BOARDS DECISION BECAUSE THEY ARE ALLOWING PARKING ON MONTECILLO
COURT CREATING TRAFFIC AND PARKING PROBLEMS. THIS DOUBLE
STANDARD IS A NEW FACT THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. THE PARKING
REQUIREMENT (ARTICLE 82-24. 1006) WAS MET AND THUS NO REASON FOR
THE RESIDENTS TO PARK ON THE PUBLIC STREET.
THE FACT THAT I AM WHITE AND MY HUSBAND IS BLACK, I CANNOT
BELIEVE THE COUNTY CHOOSES TO IGNORE THE PREJUDICE WE HAVE
ENDURED.
SI ERELY,
E AND YN BR ANT