HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06091992 - H.1 S� .L
Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON o, +'" -,a Costa
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT County
DATE: June 9 , 1992 eosrd'coiiN
SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment of Small Lot Occupancy Ordinance and Notices of
Violation and Merger Ordinance.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1 . HOLD Public hearing on proposed ordinance clarifying and
amending the small lot occupancy provisions of County
Ordinance Code section 82-10 ..002 and repealing the merger
provisions of section 82-10 . 002 and of Chapter 92-12 .
2 . ADOPT proposed ordinance.
FISCAL IMPACT
None .
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On April 28, 1992, the County Planning Commission voted
unanimously to recommend adoption of the attached ordinance to the
Board of Supervisors . Current County Ordinance Code section 82-
10 . 002 (d) sets forth the small lot occupancy exception for the
establishment of a single family dwelling on an undersized lot,
Recently, issues have arisen in the County as to the interpretation
and applicability of that exception to certain undersized lots in
the County. The Community Development Department (CDD) , after
consultation with County Counsel , has determined that section 82-
10 . 002 (c ) and section 82-10 . 002 (d) ( 1 ) (common ownership provisions )
are no longer consistent with current state statutes . In applying
the small lot occupancy provisions of section 82-10 . 002(d) , the CDD
has interpreted section 82-10 . 002 (d) ( 3 ) to allow anundersized
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x YES SIGNATURE �I �-
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON June 9, 1992 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _x OTHER
The Board held a public hearing on the proposed ordinance, and following comments
by all interested persons and the Board members,the Board adopted Ordinance 92-44.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED
cc: County Administrator PHIL BAT HELOR, CLERK OF
County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY , DEPUTY
lot to qualify for the small lot occupancy exception only if it was consistent
with the zoning district in effect at the time the lot was created or at some
time since its creation. The CDD has further determined that if there was no
applicable zoning district at the time of its creation, the lot need not be
consistent with applicable zoning requirements to qualify under section 82-
10 . 002 (d) ( 3 ) .
To avoid any confusion and misunderstanding in the future for owners,
prospective buyers or neighbors of undersized lots, it is recommended that the
merger provisions ( superseded by state law) be deleted, and the small lot
occupancy exception in County Ordinance Code section 82-10 . 002 (d) be modified to
delete the common ownership requirement and to clarify that an undersized lot
must have been consistent with the applicable zoning district at the time it was
created or at any time after its creation unless there was no zoning district in
effect at the time the lot was created.
To ensure compatibility of a proposed residence on a small lot qualifying
under this exception, the proposed ordinance provides that the Zoning
Administrator may determine, through public hearing, whether the proposed
location, size, height and design of the house is compatible with the
neighborhood prior to issuance of a building permit.
With these changes , the intent of the ordinance will be achieved: to
grandfather for single family dwelling use a lot that was at any time consistent
with an applicable zoning district or which was created prior to the application
of zoning to the lot . These changes should prevent misinterpretation of the
small lot occupancy exception which might attempt to expand its application
beyond that intent . The provision to allow for review and approval by the Zoning
Administrator in appropriate circumstances of the location, size, height and
design of the proposed dwelling on a qualifying lot will help to blend in small
lot homes with a surrounding established neighborhood. Since the modifications
to the ordinance are intended to comply with its original intent, they will not
result in any significant environmental effects and, therefore, are not subject
to CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines §15061 (b) ( 3 ) )
The proposed ordinance also amends County Ordinance Code section 82-10 . 002
and chapter 92-12 to delete the merger provisions therein. Under the Subdivision
Map Act, the time for counties and cities to merge property in the manner set
forth in these ordinance code provisions has expired. Therefore, these merger
provisions are invalid. The deletion of invalid sections of the County Ordinance
Code relating to merger is consistent with current state law. Since the
modifications are intended to comply with the intent of the Subdivision Map Act,
they will not result in any significant environmental effect and, therefore, are
not subject to CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines 15061 (b) ( 3 ) )
DJS/jh:df
D.JS(2)a:\smal-1ot.ord
ORDINANCE NO. 92- 44
(Small Lot Occupancy, Merger of Lots )
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows
(omitting the parenthetical footnotes from the official text from
the enacted or amended provisions of the County Ordinance Code) .
SECTION I . SUMMARY. This ordinance amends section 82-10 . 002
and Chapter 92-12 of the County Ordinance Code to delete
provisions for merger of adjoining lots and to clarify the small
lot occupancy requirements . It also adds a provision that the
location, size, height and design of a single family dwelling on
a substandard lot that qualifies for the small lot occupancy
exception may be reviewed and approved, conditionally approved or
denied by the Zoning Administrator through public hearing to
provide compatibility with and minimize impacts on the sur-
rounding neighborhood. The intent of the small lot occupancy
exception in section 82-10 . 002 remains the same: to provide for a
grandfather exception for small lots that were at one time
consistent with the applicable zoning district or which were
created prior to any applicable zoning district .
SECTION II . Section 82-10 . 002 of the County Ordinance Code is
amended to read as follows :
82-10.002 Division and Consolidation
(a ) Conveyance and Division Restriction. No person shall
divide or convey a lot or portion thereof, if this
results in one or more lots violating the width, yard,
or setback requirements of Divisions 82 and 84 , unless
a variance has been granted in accordance with County
Ordinance Code variance provisions .
(b) Land Satisfying Requirements . Land used to satisfy the
area, width, yard, or setback requirements for one
dwelling unit cannot satisfy those requirements for
another unit .
(c ) Small Lot Occupancy. Any lot of less area or width
than required by Divisions 82 and 84 may be occupied by
a single-family dwelling and its accessory buildings
if : ( 1 ) the yard and setback requirements of Divisions
82 and 84 are met, or a variance has been granted for
yard and setback requirements, and ( 2 ) the lot is
delineated on a recorded subdivision map, or at the
time of the creation of the lot (as evidenced by
recording date) or at any time since, the lot was
consistent in width and area with the applicable zoning
district or the lot was created prior to the
1
Ordinance No. 92- 44 .
application of zoning in its location. If a small lot
qualifies for occupancy by a single-family dwelling,
then prior to issuance of a building permit, the
location, size, height and design of the proposed
dwelling may be reviewed and approved or conditionally
approved by the Zoning Administrator after a public
hearing in order to provide relative compatibility with
and minimize impacts on the surrounding neighborhood.
(Ords . 92- 44 § 2, 79-69 § 2 : prior code § 8108 : Ords .
1371 , 1206 , 933,§ 1 , 382,§ 9 [ 2 ] : see § 82-4 . 244 . )
SECTION III . The heading of Chapter 92-12 is amended to delete
reference to merger and to read as follows :
NOTICES OF VIOLATION AND CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE
SECTION IV. Article 92-12 . 2 is amended to delete all references
to merger and to read as follows :
92-12 . 202 Purpose. This chapter supplements the provisions
of Government Code sections 66424 . 2, 66499 . 34 , 66499 . 35 and
66499 . 36 (Subdivision Map Act) , pertaining to notices of
violation and certificates of compliance. The development of
real property in the county which has been divided, or has
resulted from a division, in violation of provisions of the
Subdivision Map Act and this title is contrary to the public
health, safety and welfare.
(Ords . 92- 44 § 4 , 78-5 . )
SECTION V. The heading of Article 92-12 . 4 and Article 92-12 . 4
are amended to delete all references to merger and is renumbered
to read as follows :
Article 92-12.4
Notices of Violation
92-12 . 402 Knowledge. Any county official having knowledge
of a possible violation of parcels of land pursuant to the
provisions of the Subdivision Map Act or of this title,
shall convey such information to the director of planning.
(Ords . 92- 44 § 5, 78-5 . )
92-12 . 404 Tentative violation recordation . If the director
of planning, either on his own initiative or upon investi-
gation of information received, determines that real
property has been divided in violation of the provisions of
the Subdivision Map Act or of this title, the director may
cause a notice of intention to record a notice of violation,
setting forth the information prescribed by Government Code
section 66499 . 36 , to be recorded with the county recorder.
(Ords . 92- 44 § 5, 78-5 . )
2
Ordinance No. 92- 44
92-12 . 406 Violation hearing notice. After recording the
notice of intention to record a notice of violation, and at
least sixty calendar days prior to the recording of a notice
of violation, the director of planning shall advise the
owner of the real property, by mail, of the intention to
record a notice and specifying a time, date and place at
which the owner may present evidence to the planning
commission why such notice should not be recorded. The
director shall also mail a copy of the recorded notice of
intention to the owner. (Ords . 92-4 § 5, 78-5 . )
92-12 . 408 Planning Commission Hearing. Upon the noticed
hearing, the planning commission may wholly or partially
affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the director of
planning and the recordation of the notice of intention to
record a notice of violation . If the planning commission
determines that no violation pursuant to the Subdivision Map
Act or this title has occurred, it may direct the director
of planning to issue and file for the recordation a release
of the notice of intention to record a notice of violation.
(Ords . 92- 44 § 5, 78-5 . )
92-12 . 410 Board of Supervisors Hearing. Any hearing before
the Board of Supervisors of an appeal from the planning
commission as to the recordation of a notice of intention to
record a notice of violation shall be conducted in
accordance with .the provisions pertaining to such appeals
before the commission.
(Ords . 92- 44 § 5, 78-5 . )
92-12 . 412 Violation Action. All departments, officials ,
and employees of the County vested with the duty or
authority to issue permits necessary to develop any real
property shall conform to the provisions of this title, and
shall not willfully issue any permit or license for use or
construction or any other purpose in conflict with the
provisions of this title or of the Subdivision Map Act; and
any such permit or license issued in conflict therewith
shall be null and void. Nothing in this chapter shall be
deemed to require the recording of a notice of violation as
a condition precedent to the enforceability of any of the
provisions of this title.
(Ords . 92- 44 § 5, 78-5 . )
SECTION VI . EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30
days after passage, and within 15 days after passage shall be
published once with the names of supervisors voting for and
against it in the Contra Costa Times a newspaper published
in this County.
3
Ordinance No. 92- 44
PASSED on June 9 , 1992 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers , Fanden, Schroder, Torlakson, McPeak
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of
the Board and County Administrator
By: d >9�
Deputy Board Chair
[SEAL]
4
Ordinance No . 92- 44