Lot Line Adjustment Consistent With Zoning and Building

[kwilson]

SMA Sec 66412 States "A lot line adjustment between four or fewer existing adjoining parcels, where the land taken from one parcel is added to an adjoining parcel, and where a greater number of parcels than originally existed is not thereby created, if the lot line adjustment is approved by the local agency, or advisory agency. A local agency or advisory agency shall limit its review and approval to a determination of whether or not the parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment will conform to the local general plan, any applicable specific plan, any applicable coastal plan, and zoning and building ordinances."

Submitted a LLA to a City where the City allowed a pool to be built via approved permit maybe 25 years ago. The pool encroaches into the neighboring parcel by alot (15 feet). City is requiring the following to be in compliance before they will approve the LLA:

1. Building setbacks must comply with CURRENT code (not those that applied at the time of construction). And just because you are improving the situation does not matter.
2. Per city ordinance the average slope of the parcels determines the maximum allowable building square footage. One residence does not comply (1450 sf is allowed but the residence is 1850 sf) . The average slope ordinance was not in effect at the time of construction.
3. The new lot areas must comply with current minimum lot size. One parcel is conforming despite the fact that the area was reduced. The other parcel was non-conforming and despite the fact that we increased the size to make it less non-conforming, the adjustment was rejected. So we had to increase the size of the non-conforming to the current minimum (10,000 SF).

Lot Line Adjustments are becoming more difficult than subdivisions. It seems the intent of SEC 66412 was to make is a fairly simple process to approve a LLA. The bureaucrats (planners) are finding ways to negate that idea.

[hellsangle]

Not my preference . . . but some attorneys prefer exclusive easements.

I recall the late Robert Merritt suggesting you may ask for planning's blessing. I ran on an exclusive easement by city planning and the they had no idea, what or why, I was asking for. I guess it didn't fit in one of their boxes.

Again, not my preference.

Phil - Sonoma

[Mike Mueller]

Another option might be a friendly lawsuit?

Have the parties involved sue each other for quiet title or adverse or whatever seems to fit the best, and when the court suggests mediation, go in with the desired outcome, and have the two parties agree, and then the judge would so make it so, and the planners would be forced to do it.

I have not used this approach, and I can see lots of snags and hiccups along the way, but in jurisdictions that are too literal too allow for improvement perhaps it will become an option of last resort?

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

PS edited for quite a silly spelling error