Wash. Rev. Code » Title 58 · Chapter 58.17
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 58.17.060 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The legislative body of a city, town, or county shall adopt regulations and procedures, and appoint administrative personnel for the summary approval of short plats and short subdivisions or alteration or vacation thereof. When an alteration or vacation involves a public dedication, the alteration or vacation shall be processed as provided in RCW 58.17.212 or 58.17.215. Such regulations shall be adopted by ordinance and shall provide that a short plat and short subdivision may be approved only if written findings that are appropriate, as provided in RCW 58.17.110, are made by the administrative personnel, and may contain wholly different requirements than those governing the approval of preliminary and final plats of subdivisions and may require surveys and monumentations and shall require filing of a short plat, or alteration or vacation thereof, for record in the office of the county auditor: PROVIDED, That such regulations must contain a requirement that land in short subdivisions may not be further divided in any manner within a period of five years without the filing of a final plat, except that when the short plat contains fewer than four parcels, nothing in this section shall prevent the owner who filed the short plat from filing an alteration within the five-year period to create up to a total of four lots within the original short plat boundaries: PROVIDED FURTHER, That such regulations are not required to contain a penalty clause as provided in RCW 36.32.120 and may provide for wholly injunctive relief.
An ordinance requiring a survey shall require that the survey be completed and filed with the application for approval of the short subdivision.
(2) Cities, towns, and counties shall include in their short plat regulations and procedures pursuant to subsection (1) of this section provisions for considering sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school.
(3) All cities and towns located in a county planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall adopt or enact procedures for unit lot subdivisions. Portions of the parent lot not subdivided for individual unit lots shall be owned in common by the owners of the individual unit lots, or by a homeowners' association comprised of the owners of the individual unit lots.
(a) These procedures shall include, at a minimum, the requirement that prominent informational notes be placed on the unit lot subdivision's plat, and recorded in the county or counties in which such land is located, to acknowledge each of the following:
(i) Approval of the design and layout of the unit lot's housing development project was granted based on detailed review of that specified project, as a whole, on the parent lot, including specific reference to the applicable permit or file number for that specified project;
(ii) Subsequent subdivision actions, additions, or modifications to the unit lot housing development project's structures may not create or increase any nonconformity of the parent lot as a whole, and shall conform to the approved unit lot housing development project or to the land use and development standards in effect at the time of the proposed actions, additions, or modifications;
(iii) If a structure or portion of a structure within the unit lot housing development project has been damaged or destroyed, any repair, reconstruction, or replacement of any structure shall conform to the approved unit lot housing development project or to the land use and development standards in effect at the time the proposed repair, reconstruction, or replacement project's permit application becomes vested; and
(iv) Additional development or redevelopment of the individual unit lots may be limited as a result of the application of development standards to the parent lot.
(b) These procedures shall also:
(i) Not require any public predecision meeting or hearing, nor any design review other than administrative design review, except for those required to comply with state law, including chapter 90.58 RCW. A city must ensure that the community and property owners within 250 feet of the unit lot to be subdivided are provided notice consistent with RCW 36.70B.110 of how to provide written comments to the administrative decision maker, including through notice posted on the closest public sidewalk or roadway;
(ii) Apply only clear and objective design and development standards;
(iii) Be logically integrated with the application, review, and approval procedures that apply to the underlying unit lot housing development project to the greatest extent feasible; and
(iv) Be specifically subject to the maximum time period for local government actions as set forth in RCW 36.70B.080, unless extended pursuant to project-specific mutual agreement as permitted by RCW 36.70B.080.
(c) After the deadlines in (e) of this subsection, no city or town subject to this section may decline to accept, process, or approve an application for a unit lot subdivision, consistent with the procedural requirements of (a) and (b) of this subsection, solely because that city or town has not completed adoption or enactment of the procedures required under this section.
(d) Nothing in this section:
(i) Prohibits a city or county from applying public health, safety, building code, and environmental permitting requirements to a development project that is subject to or integrated with a unit lot subdivision process;
(ii) Requires a city or county to authorize a development project or a unit lot subdivision in a location where development is restricted under other laws, rules, or ordinances, such as in locations where development is limited as a result of physical proximity to on-site sewage system infrastructure, critical areas, or other unsuitable physical characteristics of a property.
(e) Cities and towns that are required to submit their next comprehensive plan update in 2027 pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130 must adopt or amend by ordinance, and incorporate into their development regulations, zoning regulations, and other official controls, the requirements of this section in their next comprehensive plan update. All other cities and towns must implement the requirements of this section within two years of July 27, 2025.
(f) Nothing in this subsection alters the vesting requirements set forth in RCW 58.17.033.
[ 2025 c 271 s 2; 2023 c 337 s 11; 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 s 51; 1989 c 330 s 2; 1987 c 354 s 5; 1987 c 92 s 1; 1974 ex.s. c 134 s 3; 1969 ex.s. c 271 s 6.]

Notes:

Severability—Part, section headings not law—1990 1st ex.s. c 17: See RCW 36.70A.900 and 36.70A.901.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2021 · leading case: MKKI, INC. v. Krueger, 145 P.3d 411 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
MKKI, INC. v. Krueger, 145 P.3d 411 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 6× “¶ 1 RCW 58.17.060 requires local governments to adopt regulations and procedures for the approval, alteration, and vacation of short plats.”
M.K.K.I., Inc. v. Krueger, 135 Wash. App. 647 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 6× “¶1 RCW 58.17.060 requires local governments to adopt regulations and procedures for the approval, alteration, and vacation of short plats.”
Newport Yacht Basin v. Supreme Nw., 277 P.3d 18 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “At the time the quitclaim deed was executed, former RCW 58.17.060 (1974) provided that "[t]he legislative body of a city .”
Newport Yacht Basin Ass'n of Condo. Owners v. Supreme Nw., Inc., 168 Wash. App. 56 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “At the time the quitclaim deed was executed, former RCW 58.17.060 (1974) provided that “[t]he legislative body of a city .”
Chelan Cnty. v. Nykreim, 105 Wash. App. 339 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “020(9), a boundary line adjustment resulting in “New Parcels” A, B, and C, was improper because none of the new lots was of sufficient area to meet minimum zoning requirements for width and area.”
Sparks v. Douglas Cnty., 904 P.2d 738 (Wash. 1995). “No dedication, provision of public improvements or impact fees ... shall be allowed that constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property.”
Friends of Cedar Park Neighborhood v. City of Seattle, 234 P.3d 214 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “110 requires a local government to inquire into the “public use and interest” of a proposal and make written findings as to whether “the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such” division of land.”
Chelan Cnty. v. Nykreim, 20 P.3d 416 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “020(9), a boundary line adjustment resulting in "New Parcels" A, B, and C, was improper because none of the new lots was of sufficient area to meet minimum zoning requirements for width and *422 area.”
Snohomish Cnty. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 368 P.3d 194 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “Under RCW 58.17.060, local governments may approve a short subdivision only if they enter written findings in support, as provided in RCW 58.”
Westside Bus. Park, L.L.C. v. Pierce Cnty., 5 P.3d 713 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “Under RCW 58.17.060, local governments may approve a short subdivision only if they enter written findings in support, as provided in RCW 58.”
Kates v. City of Seattle, 723 P.2d 493 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “RCW 58.17.060 directs local legislative bodies to enact procedures for summary approval of short plats or short subdivisions.”
Friends of Cedar Park v. City of Seattle, 234 P.3d 214 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “110 requires a local government to inquire into the "public use and interest" of a proposal and make written findings as to "whether the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such" division of land.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 58.17.060(1) — 2 cases
Sparks v. Douglas Cnty., 904 P.2d 738 (Wash. 1995). “No dedication, provision of public improvements or impact fees ... shall be allowed that constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property.”
West Hill, L.L.C. v. City of Olympia, 63 P.3d 160 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.