Scrogings v. Kovatch

California Court of Appeal Oct 25, 1976 No. Civ. 36244Published

Before: Christian

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a county's refusal to issue a building permit based on a subdivision map condition is a valid exercise of police power, regardless of whether that condition constitutes an enforceable equitable servitude against a subsequent purchaser.

Issues

Whether a condition on a subdivision map prohibiting lot division until public sewers are available constitutes a valid exercise of police power.
Whether the failure to include a subdivision map restriction in a deed precludes a county from enforcing that restriction through its police power.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the condition attached to its approval of the final subdivision map, prohibiting the creation of new lots in the absence of a public sewer system, was itself valid as a regulation adopted in a proper exercise of the police power.”

“the general police power of the county, exercised through the planning commission, is not vitiated by Murphy’s action.”

[56]

Opinion

CHRISTIAN, J.

On the petition of respondents John and Anita Scrogings, the trial court granted a peremptory writ of mandamus ordering George Kovatch, Sonoma County Planning Director, the Board of Zoning Adjustments of Sonoma County and the Board of Supervisors of Sonoma County to issue a zoning clearance to respondents so that a building permit might be issued for construction of a single-family residence on an unimproved lot owned by respondents. The appeal from the judgment has been taken by the county and by Leland S. Murphy, Sr., an owner of land in the affected area, who was permitted to intervene in the action.

Respondents’ lot is located in the Russian River Meadow subdivision in Sonoma County, an area developed by appellant Murphy in 1960 and 1961. It was required by the Sonoma County Planning Commission, as a condition to its approval of the subdivision map, that the document bear on its face an endorsement specifying that no lot was to be resubdivided “until such time as public sewers are available.” The final map, recorded on April 5, 1961, bore the required endorsement.

In 1963, Selberg acquired from Murphy, a lot within the subdivision; the deed to Selberg did not contain the required restrictions. Respondents purchased the lot on April 18, 1968. Again, the deed did not refer to the restriction set out on the face of the map.

In 1966, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance regulating “lot splits” within subdivisions in Sonoma County. Thereafter, pursuant to that ordinance, respondents applied to the Sonoma County Planning Department for a lot split permit, seeking permission to divide their property into two lots. The permit was issued, with the approval of the engineering advisory committee as provided by the ordinance.

When appellant Murphy learned that a permit had been issued for the proposed lot split, he informed the planning commission that there would be a violation of the prohibition against resubdividing prior to the installation of a public sewer system. Deputy County Counsel James P. Botz informed Murphy that he had advised the planning director that the lot split permit did not constitute permission by the County of Sonoma to violate conditions established by the final subdivision map. A

Scrogings v. Kovatch

AI Brief

CHRISTIAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief