Can anybody direct me to a source to retrieve a common certificate of compliance form?
I tried the Sac County Law Library and found nothing.
Please help.
Thanks,
Clark
Certificate of Complaince Form
-
LS_8750
- Posts: 1166
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:36 pm
- Location: Sonoma
- Contact:
-
Warren Smith
- Posts: 1006
- Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:41 am
- Location: Sonora
Re: Certificate of Complaince Form
Clark,
Our Community Development Department prepares and processes the cover sheet for applicants, attaches the approved description(s), and records it.
I can send a scanned image of one if that helps.
Our Community Development Department prepares and processes the cover sheet for applicants, attaches the approved description(s), and records it.
I can send a scanned image of one if that helps.
Warren D. Smith, LS 4842
County Surveyor Emeritus
County Surveyor Emeritus
-
dedkad
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 3:55 pm
Re: Certificate of Complaince Form
I sent you a private message with a sample attached. As with Warren's agency, our Community Development Department prepares the cover page.
-
LS_8750
- Posts: 1166
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:36 pm
- Location: Sonoma
- Contact:
Re: Certificate of Complaince Form
Thanks all.
I've seen my share of CoCs.
I have a reluctant City, and am trying to do what I can to help them out.
Turns out they dug up their CoC template.
Durkee told me he has CoC applications buried in City archives that are 5 to 8 years old.
Whoa!
I've seen my share of CoCs.
I have a reluctant City, and am trying to do what I can to help them out.
Turns out they dug up their CoC template.
Durkee told me he has CoC applications buried in City archives that are 5 to 8 years old.
Whoa!
-
LS_8750
- Posts: 1166
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:36 pm
- Location: Sonoma
- Contact:
Re: Certificate of Complaince Form
Beating a dead horse, right?
But, can a certificate of compliance be voided if it does not conform to the exact letter of the SMA?
SMA section 66499.35 (f) talks about the content of the certificate of compliance.
Turning attention to 66499.35 (f) (E):
"This certificate relates only to issues of compliance or noncompliance with the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances enacted pursuant thereto. The parcel described herein may be sold, leased, or financed without further compliance with the Subdivision Map Act or any local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto. Development of the parcel may require issuance of a permit or permits, or other grant or grants of approval."
What if this statement is missing, or has been poorly paraphrased?
But, can a certificate of compliance be voided if it does not conform to the exact letter of the SMA?
SMA section 66499.35 (f) talks about the content of the certificate of compliance.
Turning attention to 66499.35 (f) (E):
"This certificate relates only to issues of compliance or noncompliance with the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances enacted pursuant thereto. The parcel described herein may be sold, leased, or financed without further compliance with the Subdivision Map Act or any local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto. Development of the parcel may require issuance of a permit or permits, or other grant or grants of approval."
What if this statement is missing, or has been poorly paraphrased?
-
William Magee
- Posts: 311
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 12:27 pm
Re: Certificate of Complaince Form
What year was the C.O.C. approved and recorded? If it was prior to 1995 then be aware that particular statement was not required content then.
If the C.O.C. was recorded after 1995, then I would first want to see what language was contained in the one recorded.
I would also want to know more detail such as was it an ministrial C.O.C. or a Conditional C.O.C.
For a ministrial C.O.C., then in all likely hood the parcels for which the C.O.C. was requested already had legal separate status and the C.O.C. was simply for the purpose of placing notice of that, not actually creating it. Generally this was to put downstream parties on notice that the agency formally recognized the legal separate status that was already in existence. So no, in that case a poorly worded C.O.C. would not remove the separate legal status as it was only providing notice of it, not actually creating it.
The problem is more likely to arise when a downstream user such as the county recorder or title reviewer catches on to the fact the C.O.C. wasn't quite according to Hoyle and having him/her hold up a recording, title transfer or loan approval because things don't quite match up to his or her checklist. If I were a betting man I would bet the odds are fairly small of this happening. But it may be worth going to the agency who prepared it and have them record a corrected one. I probably wouldn't bother with it myself until and unless some downstream user questioned it and couldn't be convinced that the separate legal status of the parcel was not compromised because of the error.
.
If the C.O.C. was recorded after 1995, then I would first want to see what language was contained in the one recorded.
I would also want to know more detail such as was it an ministrial C.O.C. or a Conditional C.O.C.
For a ministrial C.O.C., then in all likely hood the parcels for which the C.O.C. was requested already had legal separate status and the C.O.C. was simply for the purpose of placing notice of that, not actually creating it. Generally this was to put downstream parties on notice that the agency formally recognized the legal separate status that was already in existence. So no, in that case a poorly worded C.O.C. would not remove the separate legal status as it was only providing notice of it, not actually creating it.
The problem is more likely to arise when a downstream user such as the county recorder or title reviewer catches on to the fact the C.O.C. wasn't quite according to Hoyle and having him/her hold up a recording, title transfer or loan approval because things don't quite match up to his or her checklist. If I were a betting man I would bet the odds are fairly small of this happening. But it may be worth going to the agency who prepared it and have them record a corrected one. I probably wouldn't bother with it myself until and unless some downstream user questioned it and couldn't be convinced that the separate legal status of the parcel was not compromised because of the error.
.