This is in the California Bay Area,
I have a client who owns (as the legal description reads) Lots 36 & 37 of the Grey Tract... There is only one APN Number. There is a house on each old Lot, not a single house crossing the Lot Line. There is no record of a Lot Merger. The map was recorded in 1906. Each Lot on the block is 50' wide. The city requires that in order for a submittal, the improvements, hardscape, house etc. are to be located and tied to the Boundary to show setbacks. I solved the block turned in the submittal package and waited over 6 months for the City Determination. When i solved the block, i had to prorate making each Lot 49.96' wide and not 50' as created. The site plan, plat and legal that i prepared for the certificate of compliance are stamped preliminary as they are only in review.
The City denied the Certificate because they found a court case that was tied to the property in which a previous owner passed away in 1986 and the estate was dived up. The property in question was awarded to a single person. The city stated that because a "Judge determined that Lots 36 & 37 were a Property that was transferred to the heirs. The judgement means that Lots 36 & 37 were conveyed together as one legal parcel and not viewed as separate and legal".
I couldn't find anywhere in the judgement that the Judge stated this is a single Lot.
The City now states that the Lots are not 50' wide (per my preliminary survey) and they will not allow a lot split by Subdivision because it does not meet the Zoning Requirement of 50' wide per the City Ordinance. They state that a subdivision would need to meet the Cities Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance as well as the subdivision Map Act.
I believe the City is incorrect and started to state my case, but you cant argue with a planner. what is the best avenue for recourse?
Any help would be appreciated.
I suggest you make your inquires over at the CLSA forum
@peter-ehlert thank you. I just cross posted there as well.
I had a similar experience. When my client hired an attorney the willingness of the city to work with us changed immediately.?ÿ?ÿ
I had a similar lot configuration in Portland years ago.?ÿ The resolved lot dimensions were a tenth or so short of record and the resulting area was less that record by a couple of sq. ft.?ÿ The house sat on both lots and the owner wanted to adjust the lines to sell of one of the lots.?ÿ
The City's minimum lot size for that area is coincident with the record lot size. While the City did not deny that the two individual lots from an early 1900's recorded plat were legal, they would not allow him the adjust the property lines because the original lot sizes were non conforming.?ÿ As a twist, they would allow him to replat the two lots into three.?ÿ Of course the fees for platting are considerably more than the simple PLA.
cool, I just saw it
http://clsaforum.californiasurveyors.org/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=8568#p52166
I couldn't find anywhere in the judgement that the Judge stated this is a single Lot.
Did they tell you that it was implied?
Just a thought.
Make it a requirement that the planning commission, have:
A PLS on salary, at all meetings.
Or, on call to review all decisions.
A planning Commission is very thoroughly OUT of their jurisdiction, to have "made this call".
Thanks,
Nate
Been down that road.?ÿ An ancient lot merger/transaction which upon modern survey is noncompliant by a few hundredths.?ÿ Not our job; time for the applicants to lawyer up, unfortunately.
Does having two houses on one lot meet the current zoning for the lot.?ÿ Were the two houses permitted by the County or City??ÿ I am currently working on a parcel map that had three houses permitted on one parcel (two houses max per zoning.)?ÿ The brothers want to split the property because the wives do not get along.?ÿ Because three houses were permitted the split is a simple parcel map with no conditions. This is in California.
Sorry about the other posts, but I'm using the wife's laptop and it does some strange things if to much pressure is placed around the mouse pad.
