Perparing to Fight City hall

[DJLS]

My clients, an elderly couple, he is 91 and in poor health and she is 86 holding the fort. Back in 1987 the local agency decided to impose a lot merger per local ordinance that mirrors the SMA Section 1.5 on the two lots that they owned. At that time the clients elected to perform a lot line adjustment to create two lots complying with local ordinances. This was performed, approved and certificate of compliances (2 one for each lot) was filed by the local agency. The adjustment plat shows that the existing home encroaches on the panhandle of the newly configured lot and a note stating “remove existing 9’ of houseâ€￾. The COC’s reference the legal descriptions of the two lots as “exhibit Aâ€￾ that is attached and clearly marked “exhibit Aâ€￾ with the adjustment plat also attached without any notation whatsoever of it being part of “exhibit Aâ€￾, assumed to be there for informational purposes.
Now the clients wish to merge the parcels so that they can remortgage the property since the lending institution indicated they would not touch it due to the encroachment. This request made me squeamish knowing how difficult and expensive it is to subdivide a parcel, particularly in this City where it is located but the clients were determined to proceed. The City processes mergers as a lot line adjustment; I prepared the package and submitted along with a fee of $1194. I received the comments from the city’s planning department stating that they would not support the adjustment due to the fact that the width to depth ratio of the new lot exceeded the maximum 1:3 as stated in local subdivision ordinances when designing new lots and furthermore that the portion of the house encroaching must be removed together with landscaping along the panhandle.
My arguments would be that this is not a subdivision of land that would dictate the 1:3 ratio when designing new lots, that COC’s were recorded stating the action was in full compliance with local ordinances and the SMA and a “Conditional COCâ€￾ as directed by SMA Section 6499.35 (nothing in local ordinance regarding this section) was not recorded. Finally of the two approved lot line adjustments I have performed previously in this City, one was an adjustment to three contiguous lots by separate owners resulted in all newly configurations exceeding the 1:3 ratio and I am sure that my research of the records will find many, many more. I hope to meet with the City people this coming week and if any of you guys can add anything to either strengthen or weaken my argument would be welcome and thank you for your time.

[PLS7393]

Sounds like a Certificate of Merger would work at this time, and clean up any need to remove 9' of the existing house. What would the removal do to the stability of the structure?

As long as the owners are aware that once a merger takes place, only a parcel map re-create the lot into two lots.

I've seen some cities tell individuals one thing, and when a package was submitted, they said something different. So be careful when dealing with a city and get everything in writting, including who said what.

[Anthony Maffia]

DJLS said: certificate of compliances (2 one for each lot) was filed by the local agency.

Were transfer deeds recorded? If not, then I don't think the LLA was finalized, and so the property is still in its initial configuration, and no encroachment would exist.

I've encountered 3 LLAs for which the COCs were recorded, but no deed transferring land. Title officers, city officials & city surveyors all told me the same thing - a COC is permission to use the new legal description, but in and of itself won't reconfigure the parcels. A deed must be filed, even if from oneself to oneself in the case of same ownership.

Perhaps the agency is looking for the additional fee that a request for variance provides.