Point Reyes Light - December 27, 2001

Chileno Valley rancher sues county

By Gregory Foley

A Chileno Valley rancher has filed a lawsuit against the County of Marin, demanding the supervisors void a county-drafted deed restricting development of his 61 acres on the Marin-Sonoma county line.

Alleging that the deed restriction has cost him $752,000 in lost property value, rancher David Scott said he signed the deed so the county would let him sell 25 of his 86.1-acre holdings to Christopher Flindt a year ago.

Even before Flindt bought the 25 acres, however, Scott had been turned down by the county when he attempted to split 9.2 acres off the original 86.1 acres. The county – in a supposed compromise – said he could split off only 4.3 acres.

Rancher’s plans

Scott had originally hoped to establish a residence and vineyard on the 9.2 acres and then sell the property to keep (what was then) his remaining 76.9-acre ranch viable and to pay family medical bills.

When the county balked, Scott found a 19th century deed that showed his 86.1 acres actually consisted of a 61-acre and a 25-acre parcel. This discovery allowed him to sell the 25-acre parcel to Flindt.

However, to effect the sale, Scott and the county last July signed an agreement that Scott’s remaining 61 acres at 7000 Chileno Valley Rd. would be kept in agriculture and could not be used for residential purposes or to develop agricultural-worker housing.

Scott claims he agreed to the restrictions under protest and would still like to build a residence and possibly farmworker housing on the 61 acres he still owns. Barring that, he wants the supervisors to either cancel the agreement or reimburse him for losing much of the value of his remaining 61 acres.

County says pact binding

Deputy county counsel David Zaltsman last week told The Light he believes last year’s agreement between Scott and the county is binding and need not be reviewed by the supervisors.

"We don’t believe that the complaint has any merit," Zaltsman said. "We had thought this was a settlement agreement. If he had said he would sign it under protest and then sue, we probably wouldn’t have done it."

Frustrating Scott is that he spent more than $20,000 working with the county Planning Division for three years to prepare his lotsplit application and that during that time, the planning staff repeatedly made errors and arbitrary judgments.

Among the staff’s supposed errors cited by the rancher was a county zoning administrator’s now-moot decision a year ago to let him split 4.3 acres off the original 86.1 acres.

Neighbors appeal lotsplit

A deputy zoning administrator in January 2000 approved that land division, but Scott’s neighbors appealed to the Planning Commission, arguing that the lotsplit would be detrimental to agricultural use of the property and would encourage development in an area zoned A-40 (40-acre-minimum agriculture parcels).

During a February 2000 hearing on the appeal, one planning commissioner asked county staff whether a Williamson Act contract on Scott’s land – which designates the land for agricultural use in exchange for a reduction in property taxes – would be affected by his proposed lotsplit.

Unaware that the property was under a state Williamson Act contract, the planning staff then reviewed Scott’s application, and it was brought back to commissioners in July 2000.

At that hearing, county staff dropped their previous recommendation that he be allowed to split off 4.3 acres on grounds that such a land division would violate the Williamson Act.

Planning staff noted that subdividing land under the Williamson Act is subject to strict requirements, which depend on the quality of the land. Lotsplits for parcels as small as 10 acres can be permitted for prime agricultural land, while other, less-valuable land must be kept in parcels no smaller than 40 acres.

Creation of a 4.3-acre parcel of non-prime grazing land did not fit the criteria, staff said. Planning commissioners then annulled Scott’s January 2000 lotsplit.

County admits mistake

While the county has admitted that it made a mistake in first approving Scott’s lotsplit application in 2000 while his land was under a Williamson Act contract, deputy county counsel Zaltsman this week said that the county is not liable for the error and should not be required to give Scott a new hearing or any compensatory funds. "Our position is that it was an honest mistake," he said. "It does not entitle someone to relief."

Scott maintained this week that the lawsuit has merit and that he deserves a hearing before supervisors. "The county really did step out of line on this," he said. "This is all over one house. This is not a subdivision. I don’t want a subdivision here."

A Marin judge on Friday, Jan. 4, will review the Scott case and decide what – if any – action will be taken. – Gregory Foley

Point Reyes Light Cover | News | Coastal Traveler