[WSBARP] Boundary Line Adjustment question

[Scott Thomas]

I have always read RCW 58.17.040 (6) as prohibiting the creation of new
parcels only, or prohibiting the alteration of a parcel such that it is
left with insufficient area or setbacks as required by zoning or other
regulations.  Thus, the combination of parcels would not be prohibited, and
several jurisdictions rely on that statute to allow the combination of
lots.  Pierce County, in particular, has a web page that describes their
process.  In rural counties, lot aggregation is encouraged as a means of
preserving natural resource properties.

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Doug Schafer <schafer at pobox.com> wrote:

> A century-old plat defines lots that are 25 ft wide and 120 ft deep, so
> 3,000 sq.ft. each, in a single-family residential zone.  Local
> jurisdiction's "minimum zoning requirements for width and area" are 35 ft
> width and 4,500 sq.ft. to build a residence.  May the owner of three
> adjacent 25-ft lots be granted a boundary line adjustment (BLA) to have two
> buildable 37.5-ft wide lots, both having 4,500 sq.ft. area?
>
> RCW 58.17.020(9) defines "lot" as "a fractional part of divided lands
> having fixed boundaries, being of sufficient area and dimension to meet
> minimum zoning requirements for width and area. The term shall include
> tracts or parcels."
>
> RCW 58.17.040(6) states that the chapter's subdivision requirements do not
> apply to "A division made for the purpose of alteration by adjusting
> boundary lines, between platted or unplatted lots or both, which does not
> create any additional lot, tract, parcel, site, or division nor create any
> lot, tract, parcel, site, or division which contains insufficient area and
> dimension to meet minimum requirements for width and area for a building
> site."
>
> Arguably, the "fixed boundaries" from the century-old plat create only one
> "lot" that meets the definition in RCW 58.17.020(9) given the current "minimum
> zoning requirements for width and area."  If so, then a BLA would be
> creating two lots out of one, so it would be not be permitted as a BLA
> under RCW 58.17.040(6).
>
> In Chelan County v. Nykreim, 105 Wn. App. 339 (2001), reversed on other
> grounds, the COA stated, "The BLA approved here was improper for two
> reasons. First, there is no indication that “Old Parcels” A, B, and C, were
> lots within the definition contained in RCW 58.17.020(9).  Hence, the BLA
> was improper because it created three lots where previously there had only
> been one lot."
>
> So would a BLA be proper to create two 37.5-ft wide lots from three
> adjacent 25-ft lots?   (Involves my neighborhood, but it's too late to
> challenge; but I'm curious.)
>
> Doug Schafer, in Tacoma.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20170411/60b9eac8/attachment.html>