Conditioning a designated remainder, 66424.6

[Anthony Maffia]

Can designated remainders be conditioned? The tentative parcel map has 4 parcels fronting a county road to the west, and the designated remainder on the east would have access from an existing gate to the north, off a state highway. This is an agricultural area and all the surrounding properties have access gates from the highway, another gate is 10 feet east and another 100 feet to the west of our gate, and the highway has a 50 foot +/- shoulder at the gate, so safety isn't the problem.

After reviewing the TM for 3 years (!!!!), the county's latest request is "please relinquish access to the highway, create an access easement across one of the other parcels, and build a new access road to the designated." But, this is farmed land, accessed half a dozen times a year safely from the highway, same as the neighbors do for 5 miles west and 25 miles to the east.

I'm told that designated remainders cannot be conditioned, and that the county cannot require the relinquishment of access. SMA 66424.6 pertains to conditioning improvements, but I'm not sure it applies. This is not a health and safety issue, there is no history of accidents, and other properties take access close to our gate. I don't think the county can force the relinquishment.

Does anyone have any thoughts or references I can use? The client REALLY wants to maintain access through the existing gate.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... um=66424.6

[Anthony Maffia]

Simpler question:

Can a Designated Remainder be conditioned?

[Warren Smith]

Conditions are limited to deferred improvements, and cannot be required until a permit is applied for by the designated remainder parcel, unless part of the subdivision agreement, or public health and safety, or a necessary prerequisite to the orderly development of the surrounding area.

So, it is negotiable, and needs to have a reasonable nexus to the overall subdivision and the General Plan.

[RAM]

to add to Warren, to obtain a development permit on the Remainder will require a Certificate of Compliance, which may have conditions that must be met, access, water, septic/sewer, etc. So sooner or later Conditions will likely have to be met. Often a remainder is created and the conditions/improvements are deferred and forgotten. Years later someone wants a building permit, and is shocked by the Conditions that must be met in order to get the Certificate of Compliance. In my area, the development of access and septic systems is often a deal breaker.

[Warren Smith]

To add to Russ, we concurrently record a cross-referenced "Notice of Minor (or Major) Subdivision Restriction", which lists those deferred improvement conditions. This places it clearly in subsequent title reports - along with the stack of paperwork at closing.

[Anthony Maffia]

The condition is: Remainder currently has access from a public road. They want it access rights relinquished and a new access easement created elsewhere and a (likely gravel) roadway built. Client wants to continue using existing access gate, which is why it is a remainder.

Thanks for the replies.

[David Kendall]

The way you are presenting it, it sounds to me like they (unspecified county planning department?) may be excessively enthusiastic about imposing their conditions. I would be interested to hear the counterpoint. This overstep is not all that surprising to me but I can understand why your client may be offended by this requirement. I expect that the situation is not as simple as it sounds...

[Warren Smith]

It does sound as if public safety/orderly development may be the underlying issue.

[dedkad]

to obtain a development permit on the Remainder will require a Certificate of Compliance.

Can you cite a statute for this requirement?

[Edward Reading]

66424.6(2)(B)(d)
(d) A designated remainder or any omitted parcel may subsequently be sold without any further requirement of the
filing of a parcel map or final map, but the local agency may require a certificate of compliance or conditional certificate
of compliance.

Emphasis mine.

[David Kendall]

66424.6(2)(B)(d)
(d) A designated remainder or any omitted parcel may subsequently be sold without any further requirement of the
filing of a parcel map or final map, but the local agency may require a certificate of compliance or conditional certificate
of compliance.

Emphasis mine.

That would be for it simply to be sold. I beleive RAM specified that COC would be required for a development permit

[dedkad]

"May" is a far cry from "required", and as David pointed out, it appears this section of the SMA refers to the sale of a remainder parcel, not development. Hoping RAM can weigh in with a citation to back up his statement that one is required for a development permit. Not trying to be argumentative, just want to know if I'm missing something.

[Anthony Maffia]

For reference, I think that code is 66424.6(d)

[RAM]

the CoC for a Development Permit is a local Agency Requirement, our County Subdivision Code states "shall". this is under the pretense that any parcel of land must be suitable for development, this is assured with the issuance of a CoC. Basically states the parcel has access and meets septic availability.

[dedkad]

the CoC for a Development Permit is a local Agency Requirement, our County Subdivision Code states "shall". this is under the pretense that any parcel of land must be suitable for development, this is assured with the issuance of a CoC. Basically states the parcel has access and meets septic availability.

Thanks for clarifying.