I have the attached hypothetical situation. There is a Vesting Tentative Map approved for multiple units, consistent with the proposed unit subdivision map. The underlying property is Parcel 1 of a Cert of Compliance via a LLA. My client is looking to record the unit map in short order and then has a buyer lined up to acquire the remainder (being Parcel 1 excepting therefrom Tract 8100-1 in essence). There is a future public street which will bisect the remainder north-south and that is the reason the owner doesn't want to just lot that part out now on the first unit map; they want the future developer of the remainder to be able to subdivide that land.
Question #1: do you agree that the remainder, whether designated as such or not, is a legal parcel for sale? My interpretation of SMA 66424.6 says that it is.
Question #2: is a Certificate of Compliance required to make this remainder legal for sale?
Question #3: the City says they won't give a C of C because they want a subdivision map; are they incorrect to request this? My interpretation of SMA 66499.35 would be that they should be able to do so, at a minimum with Conditions. I find nothing in their Municipal Code to the contrary.
Thanks in advance for any input,
Mike.
Cert of Compliance required for remainder?
-
mknap
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:52 am
Cert of Compliance required for remainder?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
mknap
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:52 am
Steve,
You're hitting on the points I was thinking as well with 66424.6(d); but I've not heard that a remainder had to be blessed by a COC and can't find SMA or Ordinance to that effect.
Nothing about the previous COC is pertinent to the discussion other than to say the existing parcel which is being subdivided with a remainder is "legal".
Our frustration lies with the City not wanting to provide a COC for the remainder, even after an application for such was filed. There was not a basis for their decision given other than to say they would only accept maps because they were concerned the history of COC & LLA in the area were making it confusing to trace title. I'm not at all in agreement that its' been confusing nor agree that is reason to deny an obligation of the City to issue the COC per the SMA.
You're hitting on the points I was thinking as well with 66424.6(d); but I've not heard that a remainder had to be blessed by a COC and can't find SMA or Ordinance to that effect.
Nothing about the previous COC is pertinent to the discussion other than to say the existing parcel which is being subdivided with a remainder is "legal".
Our frustration lies with the City not wanting to provide a COC for the remainder, even after an application for such was filed. There was not a basis for their decision given other than to say they would only accept maps because they were concerned the history of COC & LLA in the area were making it confusing to trace title. I'm not at all in agreement that its' been confusing nor agree that is reason to deny an obligation of the City to issue the COC per the SMA.