Laserfiche WebLink
Previous legal descriptions reflected the fact that Edward Novack <br />acquired the propety in a series of transactions from various grantors. <br />Sometime prior to 1970 Novack or previous owners prevailed on the <br />Snohomish County assessor under RCW 84.56 to make various segregations <br />for tax payment purposes. These segregations are reflected on the <br />assessor's quarter section maps. (See Exhibit D). <br />The property subject to the Novack Recorded Survey included <br />property labeled on the assessor's map as segregations 01, 02 and 03 of <br />Lot 38 of David's Marine Acres and 4-006, 4-007 and 4-009. The Novack <br />Recorded Survey consolidated these into Parcel A (4-006. 4-007, 4-009) <br />and Parcel B (38-01, 02, 03). <br />The "Exception" comes out of a combination of part of Parcel B, <br />designated as 003 of Lot 38 David's Marine Acres and 4-007. Neither of <br />these segments from Parcel A and Parcel B as described in the Novack <br />Recorded Survey, contain sufficient area to be suitable for building. <br />(38-03=7750 + sq. ft., 4-007= 5620 + su, ft.) When tacked they exceed <br />the 12,500 sq. ft. requirement of the applicable RS zone. <br />Contentions. <br />It is contended as follows: <br />1. Dever Construction Company, Inc. acquired no legal interest in <br />any separate parcel or parcels which is now sought for the "Exception" <br />and therefore none exists. The Novacks description did not spell out <br />separate lots, none were created and none conveyed. <br />2. The Novacks, by the Recorded Survey, merged all the previous <br />descriptions and any separate aspects to individual lots in the <br />property, into two parcels, A and B, and that was what was conveyed. The <br />Novack Recorded Survey extinguised and obliterated any claim to <br />separateness in various previously described parcels. Whatever prior <br />rights Novack had vested in the parcels as separately described parcels <br />of property were divested and extinguished by the merger of all the <br />property segregations into Parcels A and B pursuant to RCW 58.09 and <br />applicable City Coder. <br />3. The tacking together of two tax lot segregated parcels, neither <br />of which alone meet minimum lot size, constitutes a platting activity <br />subject to the requirements of state platting law and applicable city <br />ordinances. <br />Argument and Legal Authority. <br />The legal description which conveys property to Dever Construction <br />Company, Inc., although it uses different language and starts at a <br />different point of begining, describes a single parcel of property which <br />is the same in all respects to the one described in the Novack Recorded <br />Survey except for the 100 foot square parcel upon which the house sits <br />and was sold by Novack to the Wight and Hardt partnership "Village <br />Properties" and then resold to Richard and Jane Farrar. Nothing in the <br />description separately defines the lot shown as "Exception" on the <br />"Short Plat" drawing for the Short Subdivision subject to the above <br />referenced appeals. <br />The Recordation of the Survey by Edward Novack and subsequent <br />conveyence of the property subject to that survey to Dever Consrtuction <br />Company, Inc. conveyed a single parcel of property, any division of <br />which is subject. 'to the provisions of Chapter 58.17 RCW, other <br />N <br />