125, Easement adjustment, CorrespondenceCity 0/ RO/A
April 27, 1973
Godfrey Pernell, Chairman
Planning Commission
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274
WILLIAM KINLEY
CITY ATTORNEY
SUITE 901
555 EAST OCEAN BLVD.
LONG BEACH, CALIF. 90802
(213) 437-0973
re: Application of S. D. Weiman for Front Yard
Variance - Zoning Case No. 124
Dear Sir:
You have asked me to provide you and the members of the Planning
Commission with a legal opinion as to the effect of a legal document
entitled "Easement Agreement and Covenants Running with the Land"
dated January 25, 1971, executed by Edward L. Pearson and Bar-
bara J. Pearson ("Pearson"), and Howard D. Meister II and Janet
M. Meister ("Meister"), a copy of said document is attached to
this opinion.
This document purports to burden land owned by S..D. Weiman (Appli-
cant), and conveys to Pearson an exclusive easement for the use of the
surface of the real property described therein for the purpose of
maintenance of a horseback riding ring to be used by Pearson and his
successors, his immediate family, and guests. The document also
contains what purports to be a covenant running with the land which
requires Pearson and his successors to maintain the property
covered by the easement, and to pay all expenses in connection
therewith -and to save the owners of the property burdened by the
easement from any liability or damage as a result of the use as a
riding ring.
The covenant further provides that all improvements placed upon the
land covered by the easement shall comply with all applicable laws
and ordinances. Although the easement portion of the document states
that it is exclusive and granted in perpetuity, there is a provision which
provides that the easement shall terminate if Pearson or his successors
Godfrey Pernell, Chairman
April 27, 1973
Page Two
cease to be bona fide residents of the City of Rolling Hills and the
owners of fee title to residential property located in the City of
Rolling Hills.
The legal effect of this document is to create an easement in favor
of Pearson and his successors covering approximately 10, 000 square
feet of the land located on Applicant's lot, and is a legal, valid ease-
ment. That part of the document entitled "Covenant Running With the
Land" is not determinative of the question before the Commission.
Applicant's property has a gross area of approximately 2.06 acres,
including road and perimeter easements, and was originally a part of
a larger parcel which prior to its division contained approximately 6.3
acres. Said parcel was owned by Edward L. Pearson, et al, who sub-
divided the parcel in 1962 into two lots, each of which contained in
excess of two acrea in area, including all easements. The subdivision
was approved by the City of Rolling Hills and the Rolling Hills Community
Association and each lot has a building site located thereon. Both par-
cels remained under Pearson's ownership and he constructed a home on
one of the lots, and in the year 1971 sold the remaining lot to Howard
M. Meister, 'Applicant's successor in interest; and as a part of that
sale transaction, the lot purchased by Mr. Meister was burdened with
the easement as per the document described above and attached hereto.
Subsequently, Mr. Meister sold the property to the Applicant herein
who now proposes to develop and improve the same in accordance
with the plot plan which was filed as an exhibit in these proceedings.
As part of the development of the property, applicant has asked the
Commission to grant to him a conditional use permit enabling him to
construct a stable in the front yard of the lot.
Sections 3. 02 and 3. 03 of Ordinance 33 establish the minimum required
area of a lot and the minimum required area for a dwelling unit. In
other words, these sections state that each dwelling unit and lot must
have the minimum required lot area specified in the Zoning Ordinance
for the zone in which said lot is located.
The Applicant's lot is located in a two -acre zone and it is therefore
necessary that the lot have an area of not less than two acres in order
to comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. No definition
of the words "minimum acreage" or "gross acreage" has been included
in Ordinance 33, however the word "lots" is defined in Section 1. 18 of
the Ordinance and the application of this definition to the Applicant's lot
establishes that the lot area extends to its exterior boundaries, even
Godfrey Pernell, Chairman
April 27, 1973
Page Three
though there may be included within those boundaries of the lot ease-
ments for bridle trails, roads and public utilities. Accordingly, the
lot area must include all easements including those reserved for bridle
trails, roads and public utilities. Applicant's lot includes within its
two -acre area the Pearson riding ring easement (indicated on plot plan),
an easement fifty feet in width along its southerly. boundary for Crest
Road, an easement thirty feet in width along its westerly boundary for
John's Canyon Road, an easement 12-1 / 2 feet in width along its north-
westerly boundary and a ten -foot easement along the remaining boundaries
of said lot for bridle trails, public utilities and road purposes.
The only provision contained in Ordinance 33 relating to lot areas is
found in Section 5.04, which reads as follows:
"Section 5.04: Area Not to be Reduced. No lot
area shall be so reduced or diminished that the
lot area, average width, yards, or other open
spaces shall be smaller than prescribed by this
Ordinance."
To properly construe the effect of Section 5.04 on the Weiman lot, it
is necessary to have a clear definition of the words "reduce or diminish"
as these words are used in said Section. Webster's New Twentieth
Century Dictionary, Second Edition (1957), defines these words as
follows :
"Reduce: To lessen in any way, as in size, weight,
amount, value, price, etc."
"Diminish: To lessen, to make less or smaller, to
reduce in size or degree."
Synonyms are given as: Decrease, reduce, abate, curtail.
Giving full effect to these definitions, the Weiman lot as presently
burdened by the riding ring easement still meets the required lot area
specified by the Zoning Ordinance as "lot area" and "lot" as defined in
Sections 1. 18 and 3. 02 as within its boundaries is an area of two -plus
acres.
The average width of the Weiman lot has not been reduced by the burden
of the riding ring easement, as the side boundaries of the lot have
remained the same, notwithstanding the granting of the easement;
Godfrey Pernell, Chairman
.April 27, 1973
Page Four
therefore, the remaining prohibition in Section 5. 04 relating to the
reduction or diminishing of yards or other open spaces must be
considered.
Section 1. 28 of Ordinance 33 defines "yard" as follows:
"Section 1.28: Yard. An open space other than
a court, on a lot, unoccupied and unobstructed
from the ground upward, except as otherwise pro-
vided in this Ordinance."
Section 1.30 of Ordinance 33 defines "rear yard"' as follows:
"Section 1. 30: Yard, Rear. A yard extending
across the full width of the lot between the side
lot lines and measured between the rear lot line
and the nearest rear line of the main building or
the nearest line of any enclosed or covered porch..
Where a rear yard abuts a street, it shall meet •
front yard requirements of this Ordinance. Where
an easement traverses the rear portion of anyTot—
and the owner of the servient tenement does not
have the right to use the surface for buildings,
then the rear lot line shall be considered to be
the rear line of that portion of the lot to which
the easement does not apply."
The riding ring easement encompasses approximately ten thousand
square feet of the rear portion of the Weiman lot, and has constructed
on its surface a riding ring and the necessary fencing and surfacing
commonly used in connection therewith. By the terms of the riding
ring easement, the Applicant, Weiman, does not have the right to
use this surface for buildings or any other purpose inconsistent with
the terms of the easement granted to Pearson by Weiman's prede-
cessor, Meister. It must follow, therefore, that the Weiman lot
has now been reduced in size as well as value and has been made
smaller as specified in the definitions quoted above, and because
of such reduction, a lot has now been created which is in violation
of Section 5. 0.4 of the Zoning Ordinance and does not meet the two -
acre requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The parties to the riding ring easement, in Paragraph II, 1(d), agreed
that all improvements affecting the easement area shall comply with
Godfrey Pernell, Chairman
April 27, 1973
Page Five
all applicable laws, ordinances and regulations and the same language
is found in the covenant running with the land, at Paragraph III, 1(c).
Therefore, it was clearly the intent of tne parties tnat this easement
should comply with the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Rolling Hills,
and it was entered into in good faith between the parties and in the
belief that they had not diminished tne required lot area for a two -acre
building site in the two -acre zone. That result was accomplished by
the terms of the Agreement, but the other provisions of Ordinance 33
cited above have been violated and steps should be taken by tne Applicant
and by the owner of the easement to restore Applicant's lot to its
original configuration, without the burden of the riding ring easement
before any Permit should be granted for tne construction of the improve-
ments planned.
Respectfully,
William Kinley