<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Doug, not sure what your desire here is, but why can’t the owner build on all three lots with the three lots deemed legal non-conforming lots? I haven’t had
to research the issue of legal non-conforming lots up here (as opposed to CA) but it’s an idea to explore.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="Paul_Neumiller"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><img width="250" height="150" id="_x0000_i1025" src="cid:image001.jpg@01D2B2A5.D3EA47A0"></span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:white"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"> wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Doug Schafer<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, April 10, 2017 6:11 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> WSBA RPPT Real Prop. Discussion Forum <wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [WSBARP] Boundary Line Adjustment question<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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?<br>
<br>
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."<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 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).<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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>