HomeMy WebLinkAbout053 93
(!.(!' fLvvlYl-t-;L J ) . - II.,. Î -
P tv. ) (,;1
STATE OF WASHINGTON
County of Jefferson
IN THE MATTER OF CLARIFICATION OF
INTENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF
SUBSECfION 3.30.2 APPLICABILITY
SECfION OF ORDINANCE NO.04-0526-92
JEFFERSON COUNTY SUBDIVISION
ORDINANCE
}
}
}
}
}
}
RESOLUTION NO. 53-93
WHEREAS, there has been some confusion over the legislative intent and
application of Subsection 3.30.2 of the Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance
(Ordinance No. 04-0526-92), and
WHEREAS, this confusion has resulted in inconsistent administration of this
section of the ordinance, and
WHEREAS, this section had been interpreted in years past in a fair and consistent
manner.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the following is considered the
legislative intent and interpretation of this section of the ordinance, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Ordinance No. 04-0526-92, Subsection 3.30.2
shall be administered consistent with the provisions below:
The applicability section of the Subdivision Ordinance was intended to establish what
properties would require formal subdivision review upon application of the ordinance.
Subsection 3.30.2 reads as follows:
2. Parcels in common ownership separated by a public right-
of-way should not be considered a single parcel.
The application of this provision has two parts:
.
First, the applicability section addressed those properties existing at the time the
Subdivision Act came into existence. RCW 58.17 requires regulation of the
division of land. Upon its passage in 1968 all future land subdivisions would
be regulated. There existed numerous properties in the County that were
functionally split by a public road. Road rights-of-way were common physical
boundaries from which land descriptions were developed. The County's position
is that since those properties were, for all intent and purpose, already subdivided,
a formal process would serve no public purpose. Particularly since the
requirement for a formal subdivision occurred not by action of the property
owner, but rather by application of the law. Those properties that are too small
to meet minimum building standards could not be built upon, and would
probably be combined with adjoining properties. Those that were large enough
to serve as a building site could be developed. The applicability section was a
practical means to deal with this class of properties without unduly burdening
the property owner nor thwarting the public interest in land subdivision.
.
Second, there are circumstances where public entities are acquiring new rights-
of-way for road purposes and these purchases pass through an existing parcel of
property thereby severing the property into two pieces. The severed property
mayor may not become a building site depending on size, characteristics, etc.
The intent of the applicability section here is similar to that in the first instance.
That is to say, the property is functionally subdivided by the public rights-of-
way as the result of actions other than those of the property owner. This is not
VOL
1 n '~{ 50?
.1. t:J r. ...
Resolution Nos. 3-9 k:
Clarification of Intent and Administration of Subsection 3.30.2 of the Applicability Section
of Ordinance No. 04-0526-92 Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance.
the case where properties are separated by a private road and the road is
subsequently upgrade and dedicated to the public.
The key to the applicability section is that a functional subdivision occurs by the
applicability of law or actions other than those of the property owner. If a property
owner chooses to subdivide his/her property over a public road right-of-way the
applicability separation provisions do not apply. In these cases, the property is
considered as one piece and should be shown as such in the segregation recording. It
is only if the property had been separated by a road in 1968 or if a new right-of-way
is purchased, would the applicability separation provision of the ordinance apply.
APPROVED this /5 ~day of ~I ~ , 1993.
,." .
;>Â1-; CD AI ~
,"fô.~ ~.
~.,J. .it.,", . , c-
',' . .. ',' "I
',,'~"~,i,: ",',\~".,.",
1IiI'. 1" . '" '
-:W\J:"I,. ,...~
,... ,1:-- .
..' ',. >"
. ','"."..'" '1.,fC-1.~'~'
If,.>-", ",
, . t . /'
. ,/ ~ , ,!..-- . .' ') .).~ .
" '~¡'f.'t$Q"~'/"
,~ - -.-";- "
ATTEST: rJ~ M~
Lorna L. Delaney
Clerk of the Board
SEAL:
/
( t X{!Ü'5F;) fl&SLAJ (. f )
Glen Huntingford, Member
\ "~I
,:;. .
" 0 r:~",
t. t.1 u~ d. ~
-