HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 14-V-179-1 KESOLUTION NO. 14-V-179-1
RESOLUTION ON APPEAL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
De Novo Hearing
WHEEEAS the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has heretofore
denied the application of Dr. Dwight M. Bissell for a variance in required
front-yard setback for Lot 40, Wildwood Heights, which action has been
appealed to the City Council in accord with Ordinance No. 3A-11 of said
city, and
WHEREAS, the Council at the time of hearing on appeal determined by
a amjority vote of its members present that it would be more just and
equitable to have a hearing de novo on the sames a hearing de novo was
thereupon ordered held thereon in accord with Section 2.2 of Ordinance
No. 3A~ll, and the same was continued to the 7th day of December, 1960,
at Fruitvale School Auditoriums Saratoga~ Cal~fornia~ at the hour of
7:50 ~'clock P. M. of said day, at which time said he~ing de novo was
held, and
WHEREAS the applicant has met the burden of proof required to
support his said application on said hearing de novo~
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of
all evidence submitted in this matter, the application for the Variance
be, and the same is hereby granted.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVEDthat the report of findings attached hereto
be approved and adopted as findings of this Council on appeals and the
City Clerk be and he is hereby directed to notify the parties affected
by this decision.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga
this 7th day of December~ 1960, by the following vote:
AYES: Brazil~ Glennon, Drake, Langwill, Hartman
NOES: None
ABSENT: None MAO~
ATTEST:
File No. V-179
REPORT OF FINDINGS
The application for a _ ..Variance on behalf
of Dr. I~ight E. Bissel! ..................... shows:
l, That there are special conditions or exceptional characteristics
in the nature of the property to be affected or that it's location,
or it's surroundin~s are such as will permit the Council
to make a determination that a literal enforcement of the
Ordinance would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary
hardships; and
2. Tha~ the grantin~ of the applicafion is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; and
3. ~xat the g~anttn~ of the application will not materially affect
adversely the health or safety of persons residing or wo~kln~ in
the nei~l~orhood of =he propertywhich is the subject of the
applications and that ~xe use of said property in the manner
in which it is proposed to be used will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the value of
property or improvements located in said surroundleSs.