SU0000232 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RESPONSE TO APPEAL: The State Map Act permits a subdivider to create up to four parcels 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 contends that Tetra Diamond is separate from Norman Adams in that "Norman Adams, et ux (and wife ) , 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 1978 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 arm' s length transaction - for example, a sale for inadequate consideration, a transfer to a close relative or business associate, retention of control of financial interest, or 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 individuals involved in the sub- division transaction. Until April, 1988, Mr. and Mrs. Adams had controlling interest in Tetra Diamond, Inc. They currently have 43% interest, which may still be a controlling interest. Remaining interest is divided among family members. Whether or not they have a majority interest, Mr. and Mrs. Adams still clearly have control over the affairs of Tetra Diamond, Inc. and do not qualify as "an arm' s length transaction. " Lastly, there is the response to the appellant' s statement that some parcels do not share a common boundary. The appellant is referring to the two parcels which are contiguous only at their corners, where Parcel No. 23 ' s southeast corner meets Parcel No. 20 ' s northwest corner. Under the definition of a subdivision, however, this is considered contiguous. Section 66424 states that "Property shall be considered as contiguous units, even if separated by roads, streets, utility easements, or railroad rights-of-way. " FISCAL IMPACT: None. BOS LETTER PAGE 3