SU0000232 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PC : 5-5-86 MS-88-85 RESPONSE TO APPEAL : The State Map Act permits a subdivider to create up to four par- cels under the provisions of a Minor Subdivision. The creation of five or more parcels requires the filing of a Major Subdivision (Section 66426 ) . Based on the history of divisions previously approved, this Minor Subdivision would allow for more than four parcels to be created without benefit of a Major Subdivision. The appellant also contends that Tetra Diamond is separate from Norman Adams in that "Norman Adams , et ux (and others) , do not control applicant . " However , evidence in the file indicates the contrary. Specifically, Norman Adams signed the application for Tetra Diamond. Also, as noted in the 1976 division, Mr . Adams stated in the record that Tetra Diamond was the family farming operation. In an opinion prepared by County Counsel , an Attorney General ' s opinion is cited which is pertinent to this issue. The Attorney General stated in Ops. Cal . Atty. Gen. 414 , 417 : "If there is evidence that the transfer is not an arms length transaction - for example , a sale for inadequate con- sideration, a transfer to a close relative or business asso- _z, ciate , retention of control of financial interest , or r; generally a transfer which is part of a conspiracy to evade the Subdivision Map Act - the total number of lots should be treated as a subdivision. " County Counsel stated further in a memo to the Planning Division on April 4 , 1988 , that individual ownership and corporate ownership may be considered single ownership in situations where financial control of the corporation is retained by the indivi- duals involved in the subdivision transaction. Lastly, there is the response to the appellant ' s statement that some parcels do not share a common boundary. Staff assumes that the appellant is referring to the two parcels which are con- tiguous only at their corners, where Parcel No. 23 ' s southeast corner meets Parcel No . 20 ' s northwest corner. Under the defini- tion of a subdivision, however , this is considered contiguous. Section 66424 states that "Property shall be considered as con- tiguous units, even if separated by roads, streets, utility ease- ments, or railroad rights-of-way. " .a CONCLUSION: The requirement to process a Major Subdivision is based on the provisions of the California State Map Act . Once this procedural -9-