Laserfiche WebLink
Washington law and applicable subdivision and other ordinances of the <br />City of Everett. <br />The case of R/L Associates v. Klockars, 52 Wn. App 726, 763 P. 2d <br />1244 (1988) is applicable. There the applicant attempted to change lot <br />line from east -west to north -south thus creating two buildable lots. <br />The court ruled that a boundary line adjustment was not an appropriate <br />method and that a short plat approach would accomplish the result which <br />the applicant sought. The court, on page 733, directed one's attention <br />to AGO 6 (1986) which decides two hypothetical cases similar to the <br />instant situation as candidates for short subdivision. The Klockars <br />case also discussed Island Cy. v Dillingham Dev. Co., 99 Wn.2d 215, 622 <br />P.2d 32 (1983). Dillingham is distinguishable here because the lots it <br />dealt with were recorded platted lots. Further, as the Klockars case <br />states: "(T)he court's [Dillingham] analysis of the boundary adjustment <br />procedure is sketchy. The court does not address the purposes underlying <br />boundary adjustment procedures." I have attached copies of AGO 6 (1986) <br />and the Klockars case. <br />In conclusion, it appears that the both the Attorney General and <br />Washington case law would require the conclusion that there is rev basis <br />for the consideration of the "Exception" lot as a separate properly <br />created lot, but should be included in the subdivision under appeal. <br />Thank you for your consideration. <br />Very ou s� <br />e Johnston <br />Atto ey for Stream Keepers, <br />and an Jane Farrar <br />EEJ:sb <br />Attahcments <br />Enc. <br />cc: Wight & Hardt <br />Marsh, Mundorf & Pratt, <br />Attorneys at Law <br />