<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">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. </font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif">Local jurisdiction's "minimum zoning requirements
for width and area" are 35 ft width and 4,500 sq.ft.</font> 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?<br>
<br>
RCW 58.17.020(9) defines "lot" as "a </font>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."<br>
<br>
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."<br>
<br>
Arguably, the "fixed boundaries" from the century-old plat create
only one "lot" that meets the definition <font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">in RCW 58.17.020(9) given the current </font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">"minimum
zoning requirements for width and area." </font></font>If
so, then a BLA would be creating two lots out of one, so it would
be not be permitted as a BLA under </font>RCW 58.17.040(6).<br>
<br>
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."<br>
<br>
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.)<br>
<br>
Doug Schafer, in Tacoma.<br>
</body>
</html>