HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-17 EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-17
DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE TOWN'S ADMINISTRATIVE
DENIAL OF VARIANCE REQUEST VAR 2003-23 REQUESTING THE
ALLOWANCE OF A 6' HIGH FENCE PROPOSED TO BE
LOCATED 4' 3" INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
(APN: 199-392-003 - VOSE)
WHEREAS, David Vose have requested approval of an appeal of the Town's
administrative denial of a variance request to allow the construction of a 6' high fence to be
located 4' 3" into the public right-of-way on a .34 +/- acre site; and
WHEREAS, the subject site is located at 91 Emerald Drive and is further identified as
Assessor's Parcel Number 199-392-003; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Danville R-15; Single Family Residential District Ordinance
requires approval of a Variance application prior to the construction of a structure within
the public right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review the project at a noticed public hearing on
August 12, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the project has been found to be Categorically Exempt from the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, the public notice of this action was given in all respects as required by law;
and
WHEREAS, a staff report was submitted recommending that the Planning Conm~ission
deny the appeal; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all reports, recommendations,
and testimony submitted in writing and presented at the hearing; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the Town of Danville denies the appeal
upholding the Town's administrative denial of Variance request VAR 2003-23 subject to the
findings contained herein:
FINDINGS OF DENIAL
The Variance would result in a grant of special privilege, inconsistent with the
limitations on other properties in the vicinity m~d the respective land use district in
Exhibit A
which the subject property is located Since there are no other fences in this area with
similar encroachments and because there are other reasonable alternatives for the
proposed fence.
No special circumstance applicable to the subject property, such as its size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, have been identified to justify granting of the
proposed Variance.
The proposed Variance does not meet the intent and purpose of the R-15; Single
Family Residential District in which the subject property is located since the
variance is not necessary to allow for the reasonable enjoyment of a single family
home.
APPROVED by the Danville Planning Commission at a regular meeting on August 12,
2003 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Condie, Jameson, Moran, Storer, Combs
Graham, Legg, Osborn ~~~~
Chairman
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Chie of~nning
PAGE 2 OF RESOLUTION NO. 2003-17