HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Res 1991-09-03 (3)
RESOLUTION NO. 2808
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
DENYING AN APPEAL AND AFFIRMING
THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
AND REVIEW TO DENY AN APPLICATION FOR
A TENNIS COURT AND NECESSARY VARIANCES
AT 130 HACIENDA DRIVE (FACfER)
WHEREAS, on July 18, 1991, the Board of Adjustments and Review ("BAR")
held a duly noticed public hearing to consider an application by Mr. Jeffrey Facter
to construct a tennis court on his property at 130 Hacienda Drive. The application
also requested five (5) variances (rear yard setback, right side yard setback, left side
yard setback, height and lot coverage) all of which are necessary for the project; and
WHEREAS, after fully considering the application as well as all other oral,
written and documentary evidence submitted, the BAR denied the project with
prejudice because it could not make the necessary findings for any of the requested
variances; and
WHEREAS, the BAR's decision was appealed by Mr. Facter in a timely
manner; and
WHEREAS, on the afternoon of August 19, 1991, the day before the scheduled
hearing on appeal, Mr. Facter faxed a request for a continuance of the hearing to
the Town Clerk. Mr. Facter's neighbors were notified of this request and a copy of
the written request was presented to the Town Council on August 20, 1991; and
WHEREAS, the Council voted unanimously (Logan absent) to deny the
request for continuance and proceeded to conduct a public hearing on the appeal.
Neither Mr. Facter nor his architect were present although they had previously been
informed that they should be present in the event the Town Council did not grant
the continuance. Several neighbors, including at least one who had specially
returned from overseas for the meeting, were present. Factor did not state any
reason why he or his architect would not be present. Town Staff made unsuccessful
efforts to contact Facterand his architect by phone prior to the beginning of the
public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council held a public hearing at which public
testimony was received. The Council also considered all written materials submitted
by Mr. Facter and all other interested parties. After considering this evidence, the
Council voted unanimously (Logan absent) to deny the appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Council of the Town
of Tiburon that the appeal from the decision of the BAR denying the application for
1
a tennis court and necessary variances at 130 Hacienda Drive is denied and the
BAR's decision affirmed based on the following findings:
1. The applicant failed to meet the burden of establishing the existence
of special circumstances warranting issuance of the requested variances. Applicant
failed to show that because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the
strict application of the zoning ordinance will deprive applicant of privileges enjoyed
by other properties in the vicinity. The variances requested for the tennis court are
not necessary because of any physical characteristic of the property, but simply
because of the large area necessary for the tennis court. No other residences in the
vicinity or in similar zones have tennis courts. Applicant could use his property in
the same manner as other similar properties (gardens, decks, playyards, hottubs) in
compliance with the zoning ordinance.
2. Applicant failed to establish that the requested variances would not
constitute the grant of special privileges. The requested tennis court would run from
one sideyard property line all the way across the property into a neighbor's yard.
This would result in a structure of approximately twenty-five feet in height along
that entire distance and result in lot coverage of twenty-four percent or nine percent
over the allowable. Applicant failed to show that any other similarly situated
property had such construction.
3. Applicant failed to establish that the strict application of the
ordinance would result in any unnecessary hardship. The applicant already has a
residence and two-car garage on the property. Applicant failed to show what
hardships might be created if he did not have a tennis court on his property.
4. Applicant failed to establish that the granting of the variance would
not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property. The
application calls for a twelve to fourteen foot high retaining wall along the entire
length of the property in an area with previous slide problems. There was no
evidence showing that this was safe. Furthermore, the surrounding properties would
be faced by the visual impacts of a solid structure of approximately twenty-five feet
in height, as well as the court itself. The noise associated with the use of the tennis
court would also be injurious to surrounding residents.
2
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the
Town of Tiburon on September 3, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Friedman, Coxhead, Thayer
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
None
ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Logan
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Kuhn
ATTEST:
~AJh.'11. ~
SE M. HENNESSY, TOWN C RK
3