Laserfiche WebLink
9 ,A - Lt{/ EDWARD AND SUSAN WILSON <br />454 B A R K E N T I N E LANE <br />RED \C O OD CITY, CA 94()65-1126 <br />(65Jl) 654 -44()7 <br />April 21, 2003 <br />Nit Blake Lvon• Associate Planner <br />Communitv Development Services <br />Plannin- and Redevelopment <br />1017 Middlefield Road <br />Redwood CitN CA 94063 <br />Re Application for a Variance (\'2003 -02) <br />Application for an Architectural Permit (AP2003 -20) <br />454 Barkentine Lane, Redwood City, CA <br />Susan B Edward Wilson, owners <br />Dear Mi Leon. <br />This responds to your letter dated March 28, 2003. First, thank you for the cordial and <br />affirmative response you gave to our telephone request that the above application may proceed as <br />scheduled \1'e look forward to the hearing now set for 10 am, on April 23, 2003 Will you please <br />make the necessary findings and approve our variance The following rationale addresses the <br />issue. \'Oil raised regarding our original application, and establishes why we think the findings can <br />be made <br />Our understandinc* is that you encouraged us to withdraw the above variance application <br />because no substantially similar precedence [for granting the variance] was found b city staff. <br />This piompted us to conduct more research on the subject of city zoning and more particularly, <br />ariances In our efforts, we gathered more information from the city, the internet, court cases and <br />other professionals including legal experts. However, please know beforehand, we made this <br />effort on our own behalf and certainly do not mean to represent to you that we are now experts. <br />ReL,ardin issues of precedent. we found that "the approval or denial of a variance does not <br />create it precedent for subsequent variance requests. Because each variance is based upon special <br />circumstances relatin<< to the site for which it is proposed, the past grant or denial of variances for <br />other properties in the same area does not mandate similar action on the part of the hearing body" <br />[ hiller r lir uizl u) .1'uhrrri.une u� .1'unru Hcn hura ('oun!I' (1981) 122 Cal.App..3 <br />In other words, it seems that prior similar (precedent setting) variances are not required to <br />make a decision. either for, or against an applicant. Likewise, the approval of this application does <br />not set a legal precedent that can later be used by others <br />%loremer \\e found that "Findings are the legal footprints local administrators and officials <br />lea\ e to evplant hox\ the\ progressed from the facts through established policies to the decision " <br />[ lolrui� r ( 'otmll' of Loe .4ilgele.N, 1974] <br />Theretoie, it additionall }' seems that the fact that, (as stated in your letter) "those other <br />Properties obtained a variance [and] did so with specific findings, [and that those] findings <br />e in these preceding cases are not applicable for [our] standard rectangular lot of <br />