Wash. Rev. Code § 58.17.110
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The city, town, or county legislative body shall inquire into the public use and interest proposed to be served by the establishment of the subdivision and dedication. It shall determine: (a) If appropriate provisions are made for, but not limited to, the public health, safety, and general welfare, for open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and schoolgrounds, and shall consider all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) whether the public interest will be served by the subdivision and dedication.
(2) A proposed subdivision and dedication shall not be approved unless the city, town, or county legislative body makes written findings that: (a) Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and schoolgrounds and all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. If it finds that the proposed subdivision and dedication make such appropriate provisions and that the public use and interest will be served, then the legislative body shall approve the proposed subdivision and dedication. Dedication of land to any public body, provision of public improvements to serve the subdivision, and/or impact fees imposed under RCW 82.02.050 through 82.02.090 may be required as a condition of subdivision approval. Dedications shall be clearly shown on the final plat. No dedication, provision of public improvements, or impact fees imposed under RCW 82.02.050 through 82.02.090 shall be allowed that constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property. The legislative body shall not as a condition to the approval of any subdivision require a release from damages to be procured from other property owners.
(3) If the preliminary plat includes a dedication of a public park with an area of less than two acres and the donor has designated that the park be named in honor of a deceased individual of good character, the city, town, or county legislative body must adopt the designated name.
(4) If water supply is to be provided by a groundwater withdrawal exempt from permitting under RCW 90.44.050, the applicant's compliance with RCW 90.44.050 and with applicable rules adopted pursuant to chapters 90.22 and 90.54 RCW is sufficient in determining appropriate provisions for water supply for a subdivision, dedication, or short subdivision under this chapter.
[ 2018 c 1 s 104; 1995 c 32 s 3; 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 s 52; 1989 c 330 s 3; 1974 ex.s. c 134 s 5; 1969 ex.s. c 271 s 11.]
Notes:
Intent—2018 c 1: See note following RCW 90.94.010.
Effective date—2018 c 1: See RCW 90.94.900.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 70
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · leading case: Whatcom County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board
Whatcom County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2016)
“097(1); RCW 58.17.110. The County countered that it complied with the GMA by drafting a comprehensive plan that incorporates and is consistent with Ecology’s regulations in water resource inventory area (WRIA) 1.”
Trimen Development Co. v. King County (1994)
“BACKGROUND In 1981, pursuant to former RCW 58.17.110, [1] the King County Council enacted ordinance 5596, [2] finding that King County had a "general and increasing need for parks, open spaces and recreational facilities to serve the expanding population of the County.”
Knight v. City of Yelm (2011)
“The court concluded that RCW 58.17.110 and YMC require the City to make findings of "appropriate provisions" for potable water before final plat approval and cannot delay the showing until the building permit stage.”
Isla Verde International Holdings, Inc. v. City of Camas (2002)
“Instead, the City maintains, the set aside is a police power based condition imposed pursuant to RCW 58.17.110.* 12******** 11 The City says that RCW 82.”
Henderson Homes, Inc. v. City of Bothell (1994)
“" There are two narrowly drawn exceptions to this absolute prohibition: (1) "However, this section does not preclude dedication of land or easements [pursuant to RCW 58.17.110, the platting statute]" under certain conditions.”
Kittitas County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2011)
“The parties dispute whether the requirement of RCW 58.17.110 that counties assure appropriate provisions are made for potable water supplies means only that counties must assure that water is factually available underground or that water is both factually and legally available.”
Henderson Homes, Inc. v. City of Bothell (1992)
“The developers could have chosen instead to dedicate land, for example. [3] Furthermore, though the agreements may not comply with the requirement of RCW 82.”
Trimen Development Co. v. King County (1992)
“020 by 13 years. 2 Thus, RCW 58.17.110 provided the original authority for municipalities to require land dedications for park purposes.”
Snohomish County v. Pollution Control Hearings Board (2016)
“060, local governments may approve a short subdivision only if they enter written findings in support, as provided in RCW 58.17.110. RCW 58.17.110(1) requires, as a prerequisite to subdivision approval written findings that “appropriate provisions are made for [inter alia]…”
Miller v. City of Port Angeles (1984)
“It must consider the adequacy of access to and within the proposed subdivision, and it is empowered to condition approval of the plat upon adequate access.”
Cobb v. Snohomish County (1992)
“Rev. at 298; see generally R. Settle, Washington Land Use and Environmental Law and Practice 114-15 (1983).”
IVY CLUB INVESTORS v. Kennewick (1985)
“, supra , that governmental bodies have no express authority to impose a development fee or tax as a condition of subdivision approval under RCW 58.17.110. However, the parties strongly disagree whether RCW 82.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 58.17.110(1) — 9 cases
Knight v. City of Yelm (2011)
“The court concluded that RCW 58.17.110 and YMC require the City to make findings of "appropriate provisions" for potable water before final plat approval and cannot delay the showing until the building permit stage.”
Snohomish County v. Pollution Control Hearings Board (2016)
“060, local governments may approve a short subdivision only if they enter written findings in support, as provided in RCW 58.17.110. RCW 58.17.110(1) requires, as a prerequisite to subdivision approval written findings that “appropriate provisions are made for [inter alia]…”
Henderson Homes, Inc. v. City of Bothell (1992)
“The developers could have chosen instead to dedicate land, for example. [3] Furthermore, though the agreements may not comply with the requirement of RCW 82.”
Tugwell v. Kittitas County (1997)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 58.17.110(1)(a) — 2 cases
Howe v. Douglas County (2000)
Howe v. Douglas County (2000)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 58.17.110(2) — 16 cases
Whatcom County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2016)
“097(1); RCW 58.17.110. The County countered that it complied with the GMA by drafting a comprehensive plan that incorporates and is consistent with Ecology’s regulations in water resource inventory area (WRIA) 1.”
Kittitas County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2011)
“The parties dispute whether the requirement of RCW 58.17.110 that counties assure appropriate provisions are made for potable water supplies means only that counties must assure that water is factually available underground or that water is both factually and legally available.”
Knight v. City of Yelm (2011)
“The court concluded that RCW 58.17.110 and YMC require the City to make findings of "appropriate provisions" for potable water before final plat approval and cannot delay the showing until the building permit stage.”
Trimen Development Co. v. King County (1994)
“BACKGROUND In 1981, pursuant to former RCW 58.17.110, [1] the King County Council enacted ordinance 5596, [2] finding that King County had a "general and increasing need for parks, open spaces and recreational facilities to serve the expanding population of the County.”
Cobb v. Snohomish County (1992)
“Rev. at 298; see generally R. Settle, Washington Land Use and Environmental Law and Practice 114-15 (1983).”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 58.17.110(2)(a) — 5 cases
Whatcom County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2016)
“097(1); RCW 58.17.110. The County countered that it complied with the GMA by drafting a comprehensive plan that incorporates and is consistent with Ecology’s regulations in water resource inventory area (WRIA) 1.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 58.17.110(2)(b) — 1 case
Bunnell v. Blair (2006)
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.