|
Description:
|
| | |
File Archived
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
8/6/2018
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Ntc of Dec Denial/Appl Inst-UF
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
5/6/2015
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Deny Application
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
5/6/2015
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Updated/Add'l Info Recv'd
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
4/11/2015
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Updated/Add'l Info Recv'd
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
2/24/2015
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
A Clock Interrupt
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
4/11/2015
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
DRD Reviewer Letter (F)
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
2/13/2015
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
A Clock Interrupt
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
1/22/2015
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Incomplete App Request Info
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
2/4/2015
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Date Assigned to Planner
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
10/27/2014
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Case Entered
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
10/24/2014
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Consistency Review-U
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
5/1/2015
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Env. Sensitive Area Review-U
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
5/1/2015
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
App Substantially Complete-U
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
|
|
|
Title:
|
| | |
F-WAC 458-61A-109(2)(A)
|
|
Wording
|
| | |
This proposal is not consistent with WAC 458-61A-109(2)(a) whereas, "a boundary line adjustment is a legal method to make minor changes to existing property lines between two or more contiguous parcels."
This proposal specifically is not consistant with WAC 458-61A-109(2)(a) as the proposed parcels are not contiguous.
The Merriam-Webster Dictonary defines contiguous as:
1: being in actual contact : touching along a boundary or at a point
2: of angles : adjacent 2
3: next or near in time or sequence
4: touching or connected throughout in an unbroken sequence
|
|
|
Title:
|
| | |
F- SOI
|
|
Wording
|
| | |
This proposal does not meet the conditions as setforth in the required Statement of Intent in JCC 18.35.080(4) as follows:
This recording is for the purpose of assisting with a boundary line adjustment pursuant to RCW 58.17.040(6). It does not create any additional lots, tracts, parcels, or a division as the land described hereon shall merge or be integrated into abutting property presently owned by the proponents. Nor does the boundary line adjustment result in any lots, tract, parcels or division which contain insufficient area and dimesion to meet minimum county and sanitation requirements for width and area for building site.
The proposal specifically does not satifsy the requirement of abutting property. Jefferson County Code 18.10.010 defines abutting as follows, "means adjoining with a common boundary line or any portion thereof." Therefore, the Statement of Intent for this proposal cannot be approved.
|
|
|
Title:
|
| | |
F-ASSESSOR'S OFFICE COMMENTS
|
|
Wording
|
| | |
On April 11, 2015 Sherrie Shold from the Assessor's Office commented as follows:
"This transaction was first identified as a possible sub-division violation with a letter sent to the parties on 12/19/2013. I did received acknowledgment of the letter from Mr. Voetberg on 12/26/2013 that he was contacting DCD.
Although I can understand the reasoning for the transaction, I do not see how this transaction can be a BLA if the parcels are not contiguous with BLA requirements of today. The definition of a BLA is to adjust common boundaries between parcels. The parcel being deeded is not only approximately 250' from the subject additional parcel; another ownership, State Highway 101 and a secondary road also seperate it.
In researching the parcel, I discovered Mr. Voetberg completed a BLA in 1996 consolidating his non-contiguous parcel South of Highway 101 (Tax 9) with his parcel North of Highway 101(Tax15). BLA requirements of 1996 were quite different than they are today; but this may explain why the parties thought this was possible."
|
|
|
Title:
|
| | |
F-ASSESSOR'S OFFICE COMMENTS
|
|
Wording
|
| | |
On February 24, 2015 Pat Perryman from the Assessor's Office commented as follows:
"After reviewing this proposed action, I have the following comment(s):
Finally, this proposed Boundary Line Adjustment is not adjacent to the parcel that would be attached to. The existing parcel and the proposed addition to the existing parcel are split by the State Highway, a private road and a part of a parcel of property that is not involved in this proposed action. (It might be possible, since the purpose of this is related to the drainfield, to not actually “touch” the property owned by Phillip Stevens.)"
|
|
|
Title:
|
| | |
F-BACKGROUND
|
|
Wording
|
| | |
On November 19, 2014, initial contact regarding the criteria conflict of the proposal not involving abutting parcels was made by DCD to the applicant. After sometime of research and discussion, on January 22, 2015 the applicants made the decision to move forward with the proposal without any revisions or additional information submitted to resolve the criteria conflict seen by DCD.
|
|
|
Title:
|
| | |
F-NOT POSSIBLE
|
|
Wording
|
| | |
Therefore, approval of this proposal is not possible as it would be a sub-division violation per Washington State Regulation and does not meet requirements of JCC 18.35
|
|
|
Title:
|
| | |
F-APPLICABILITY
|
|
Wording
|
| | |
The purpose of Jefferson County Code 18.35, is to regulate the division of land in accordance with the standards established by the state of Washington and Jefferson County. JCC 18.35.030(2) states that property boundary lines seperating two or more lots of record may be adjusted only under the specific provisions set forth in this chapter.
|
|