| ||
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO | ||
Date: |
January 3, 2002 | |
Set Time: |
9:30 a.m. | |
Hearing Date: |
January 15, 2002 | |
To: |
Honorable Board of Supervisors | |
From: |
Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services | |
Subject: |
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Consideration of an appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission to approve a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure a lot line affecting two existing lots located at 801 June Hollow Road in the unincorporated area of Montara. | |
RECOMMENDATION | ||
Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the Lot Line Adjustment, County File Number PLN 2000-00734, by adopting the findings and conditions of approval listed in Attachment A. | ||
PROPOSAL | ||
The applicant is seeking a Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure a lot line between two parcels. One parcel (037-044-020) is comprised of Lot D. The other parcel (037-044-040) is comprised of Lots C, B and A. The Lot Line Adjustment, as conditioned, would reduce the four lots to two, both being larger than what previously existed. One parcel (Lot D) would be increased from 0.77 acres to 1.03 acres. The second parcel, merged Lots C, B and A, would go from three separate lots at 0.81 acres, 0.76 acres and 0.70 acres to one 2.02-acre lot. | ||
SUMMARY | ||
A Lot Line Adjustment application was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission to reconfigure a lot line between two lots (Lots C and D) and as a condition of approval requires that the remaining portion of Lot C be merged with the two adjacent lots (Lots A and B). This approval was appealed. The appellant, Ernest Thompson, raises five issues: (1) The lot line adjustment would not create a legal parcel; (2) This is a new subdivision which requires the issuance of a subdivision permit; (3) The lot line does not conform to Government Code Section 66412(d) which deals with enforcing the local zoning ordinance; (4) An explanation has not been forthcoming as to why Section 6903 (RM-CZ) of Zoning Regulations does not apply; and (5) No building of additional structures/residences should be allowed on the lots without the issuance of a building permit. These issues are discussed in the main report, but staff sees no basis in them for altering the Planning Commission's action. Staff recommends approval of the project as originally proposed and approved by the Planning Commission. | ||
