Planning commission continues hearing on proposed deck at 8 Buggy Whip Drive after concerns about equestrian character

The Rolling Hills Planning Commission on May 19 continued a public hearing on zoning case 26-35, in which homeowner/applicant Doris Sung asked the commission to allow construction of a 1,650-square-foot deck that would encroach roughly 8 feet into the rear-yard setback at 8 Buggy Whip Drive.

Staff presenter (speaker 8) told commissioners the property is zoned RAS-2 and that the application requests site-plan review plus a variance for the encroachment. The staff report described two building pads on the 1.65-acre lot, an existing 3,746-square-foot residence, a 667-square-foot garage, an 800-square-foot barn and a 450-square-foot stable; staff said the barn, stable, sports court and riding ring were permitted over multiple years and that the proposed deck, as presented, would be categorically exempt from CEQA.

Homeowner Doris Sung said she and her family plan to use the space for weddings and family gatherings and emphasized the need to preserve access to an existing concrete drainage trough; she said the decking would be built to allow removal of planks for maintenance and to limit permanent closure of the drainage access. Sung also said she intends to retain the stable and corral and is open to alternative surfacing if necessary.

Several commissioners raised concerns that a permanent deck could erode the lot’s equestrian uses over time, describing a potential “slippery slope” from horse-related structures to more recreational hardscape. Commissioners and staff suggested lower-impact alternatives — such as pervious pavers, decomposed granite (DG), temporary dance flooring or a removable platform — that might meet the homeowner’s needs while reducing impervious surface and preserving future equestrian function. Staff also noted that reducing the deck so it no longer encroaches by 8 feet would remove the need for a variance but would still require site-plan review.

Staff confirmed that, if the applicant chose to defer and return at the next meeting, re-noticing would not incur additional submission fees provided the original noticing materials were valid. After discussion the commission voted to continue the item to the next scheduled meeting so the applicant can work with staff on alternative designs and gather any additional information requested by commissioners.

A motion to continue zoning case 26-35 was made by a commissioner (speaker 5) and seconded by the staff presenter (speaker 8); the motion passed by roll call. The commission asked the applicant to coordinate with staff on possible lower-impact solutions and to return prepared to address how the deck would be removed or otherwise modified in the future if necessary.

The commission’s action was procedural (continuance) and does not constitute final approval or denial of the variance. The case will return at the commission’s next meeting; staff advised the applicant re-noticing would not impose additional submission fees.