Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09171991 - H.7 TO: r BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SE L Contra FRIM: Harvey Bragdon, Community .Development Department Costa County DATE: September 17 , 1991 CO . SUBJECT: Appeal of Jay Koppelman (applicant) and Michael and Marie Marshall (owners ) on the Issuance of- a Certificate of Compliance for Property located at San Miguel Drive, Walnut Creek (County File CZ 330 ) (APN 183- 181-001-- 1 and on a Determination Whether the Lot Qualifies as a Building Site Under the Small Lot Occupancy Exception of County Ordinance Code Section 82-10 . 002 (d) . I . RECOMMENDATIONS: Deny the appeal filed by Jay Koppelman and direct the Community Development Department to issue a certificate of compliance that sets forth the County's determination that the subject parcel is not a lawful lot under County Ordinance section 82 . 4 . 244 (b) to qualify as a building site for a single family dwelling and does not qualify as a small lot that may be occupied by a single family dwelling under section 82-10 . 002 . II . BACKGROUND: The applicant submitted a request to the Community Development Department that a certificate of compliance be issued for the lot owned by the Marshalls at San Miguel Drive (APN 183-181-006 ) . The lot is in an area that is now zoned R-20 . The lot does not meet the area ( less than 7 , 000 square feet instead of 20, 000 square feet) , width ( 67 feet instead of 120 feet) , or depth ( 100 feet instead of 120 feet) requirements of the R-20 District as set forth in Article 84-14 . 6 of the County Zoning Ordinance . The lot was created by grant deed with a metes and bounds description recorded in 1954 . It was not consistent with the zoning district standards applicable to the lot at the time it was created. County Zoning Ordinance No. 382, (adopted in 1947 ) known as the Precise Land Use Master Plan of the County of Contra Costa, was the applicable zoning ordinance, as amended. The area containing the subject property was identified as R-A, Transition Residential Agricultural District zoning (see C :C.0 Ord. No. 420 adopted in 1948 ) . Minimum lot size under that district was one-half acre with an average width of not less than one hundred feet (C .C.C . Ord. No. 382, § 4F) . CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATU RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTE _X APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON September 17, 1991 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER Board action set forth on attached pages 3, and 4. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS ISA TRUE X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT Powers AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. cc: Community Development ATTESTED September 17, 1991 County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Jay Koppelman SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR James Hillman Mark Armstrong 0 BYAA J ,DEPUTY M382 (10/88) The applicable subdivision ordinance in Contra Costa County at the time the lot was created was Ordinance No. 820 adopted in 1953 . That ordinance regulated only the division of five or more lots (C .C.C. Ord. No . 820, §1 ) . That limitation was consistent with state subdivision law at the time which limited the regulation of the division of land for purposes of sale to five or more parcels , per Chapter 259 , adopted in 1947 by the State Legislature. Since the time the lot was first created, three different applications have been submitted to the County to authorize development of a single-family home on the lot . The first application, County File No. 9-54 , to have less than the required lot size, was denied by the Board of Supervisors on March 2, 1954 . The second application for a similar request, County File No. 454-58, was denied by the Board of Adjustment on October 23 , 1958 . The third application, County File No. 1038-89 , this time for a variance to have less than the required lot size, was denied by the Planning Commission on December 12, 1989 . On December 17 , 1990 , Mr. Koppelman filed application County File No. CZ-330 for a certificate of compliance with the Subdivision Map Act . A conditional certificate of compliance was prepared and available for recordation on May 22 , 1991 . It required compliance with the R-20 Zoning District or the approval of variances thereto as a condition of that certificate of compliance . An administrative appeal to the Board of Supervisors was filed by Mr. Koppelman on May 30 , 1991 , contesting the conditional nature of that certificate . Following the filing of the appeal and upon further review of the matter by County Counsel at the request of the attorney for Mr. Koppelman, it was determined by County staff prior to the hearing on the appeal set for August 6 , 1991 , that the certificate of compliance should not be conditional . The appeal hearing was continued to September 17 , 1991 . Prior to the continued hearing, in order to address the issue of zoning compliance as part of the appeal, the certificate of compliance was modified to include an additional provision in the NOTICE section that it had been determined by the County that the lot did not come within the small lot occupancy exception set forth in Section 82-10 . 002 (d) . At that hearing, the Board was to consider whether or not the Koppelman lot is a buildable lot under the small lot occupancy exception set forth in Section 82-10 . 002 (d) . The attorney for the applicant, the attorney for interested neighbors, and County Counsel agreed to frame the issue on appeal in this matter to expedite the administrative process for the applicant and to provide appropriate notice to prospective parties interested in the lot. If the appeal were to be denied, then the NOTICE section would remain as presented in the revised certificate of compliance . If the appeal were granted, then the NOTICE section would be modified accordingly. It was the determination of the Community Development Department and the Community Development Director, Harvey Bragdon, following review with County Counsel, that the Koppelman lot does not come within the small lot occupancy exception of Section 82-10 . 002 (d) . The Community Development Department concluded that the ordinance does not allow, as a grandfather exception, a single-family dwelling on a parcel like the Koppelman lot, because the lot is smaller and narrower than allowed by the zoning district for the lot at the time it was created. The Community Development Department determined that for this exception to apply, the Koppelman parcel must have been a legal building lot at the time it was created; i .e. , consistent with the zoning ordinances in effect at that time . The Community Development Department further determined that, in this particular instance, the zoning has not substantially changed in the area since the time the lot was created. At the time of the creation of the lot, the area was zoned R-A transition residential agricultural district, one-half acre minimum lot size. The general area was rezoned to R-20 in 1972 . At that time, the Contra Costa Code was recodified to its present form and the R-A zone eliminated . County Ordinance Section 82-4 . 202 confirms that the transition residential agricultural district is synonymous with the single-family residential district and that the map symbol "R-A" is synonymous with "R-20 . " Therefore, the Community Development Department determined that this small lot occupancy exception does not apply to this circumstance on the further ground that there has been no substantive change in the zoning for the lot, and the lot was substandard under the zoning in effect at the time of its creation. 2 It is the position of the Community Development Department that the small lot occupancy exception ordinance was intended to grandfather in s=Nall lots that became substandard as a result of subsequent changes in the zoning. It was not intended, and in the opinion of the Community Development Department should not be interpreted, to apply to lots that were substandard under the zoning at the time they were created. Subsequent changes in the small lot occupancy ordinance following its original adoption in 1958 do not and were not intended to provide differently. Moreover, the small lot occupancy ordinance is not applicable because the zoning for the lot has remained substantially the same since the time the lot was created. The applicant has appealed the administrative determination of the Community Development Department to the Board of Supervisors that his lot does not come within the small lot occupancy zoning exception provided for in County Ordinance Section 82- 10 . 002 (d) . III . FISCAL IMPACT. None . IV. CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION. If the Board grants this appeal it will be contrary to the meaning and intent of the small lot occupancy exception (C.C .C . Ord. Code § 82-10 . 002 ) , which was intended to "grandfather" only those lots that were of legal building lot size at the time they were created and only became substandard in size as a result of a change in the applicable zoning. The small lot occupancy exemption was not intended to permit occupancy on lots which were substandard before the zoning charge and remain substandard after a subsequent change in zoning . Action of Board on September 17, 1991 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x On August 6 , 1991 , the Board of Supervisors continued to this date the hearing on the Administrative Appeal by Jay L. Koppelman from the decision by Harvey Bragdon, Director of Community Development, on the issuance of a Conditional Certificate of Compliance for property located at San Miguel Drive, Walnut Creek area (CZ-330 ) . Harvey Bragdon, Director of Community Development, presented the staff report on the appeal . The following persons appeared to speak: Jay Koppelman, 1600 S . Main Plaza #170, Walnut Creek, requested that the Board make a decision on the Certificate of Compliance without further delay. S . M. Skaggs , . P .O. Box V, Walnut Creek, representing Mr. Koppelman, commented on cooperative efforts to narrow and define the issues on the appeal with the focus on issues including- what use can be made of the lot in question, and qualification for the small lot exception. George Armstrong, 2151 San Miguel Drive, Walnut Creek, spoke in opposition to the appeal and urged the Board to deny the application. Margaret Phillips, 2135 San Miguel Drive, Walnut Creek, spoke in opposition to the appeal . Mark Armstrong, P.O. Box 218 , Danville, spoke in opposition to the appeal . Mr. Skaggs spoke in rebuttal . The public hearing was closed. Supervisor Schroder inquired as to whether the staff recommendtion for denial of the appeal has a sound legal basis in light of today' s testimony. Victor Westman, County Counsel, responded affirmatively. He stated that he agreed with the assessment by former County Counsel, John Clausen, that the intent of the small lot occupancy exception was to grandfather in as buildable lots, parcels that were consistent with the zoning at the time they were created and which only became substandard as a result of zoning changes taking place after their creation. Any modifications to the small lot occupancy ordinance were intended to address only issues relating to merger, which are not applicable here. 3 ,Board members indicated their support for the position of the Community Development Department and the interpretation of the ap Gartment and County Counsel and this application of Section 82-10 . 002 (d) to the Koppelman lot for the reasons set forth above. Supervisor Schroder commented on the semi-rural character of the area in question and that, based upon information received today, the recommendation of the staff , and the explanation by County Counsel, he moved for denial of the appeal filed by Mr. Koppelman. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the staff recommendations are accepted and approved and the appeal of Jay Koppelman on the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance for property located at San Miguel Drive, Walnut Creek (CZ-330 ) is DENIED. djs: a:\comply.djs 4