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

Wash. Rev. Code § 58.17.215 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
When any person is interested in the alteration of any subdivision or the altering of any portion thereof, except as provided in RCW 58.17.040(6), that person shall submit an application to request the alteration to the legislative authority of the city, town, or county where the subdivision is located. The application shall contain the signatures of the majority of those persons having an ownership interest of lots, tracts, parcels, sites, or divisions in the subject subdivision or portion to be altered. If the subdivision is subject to restrictive covenants which were filed at the time of the approval of the subdivision, and the application for alteration would result in the violation of a covenant, the application shall contain an agreement signed by all parties subject to the covenants providing that the parties agree to terminate or alter the relevant covenants to accomplish the purpose of the alteration of the subdivision or portion thereof.
Upon receipt of an application for alteration, the legislative body shall provide notice of the application to all owners of property within the subdivision, and as provided for in RCW 58.17.080 and 58.17.090. The notice shall either establish a date for a public hearing or provide that a hearing may be requested by a person receiving notice within fourteen days of receipt of the notice.
The legislative body shall determine the public use and interest in the proposed alteration and may deny or approve the application for alteration. If any land within the alteration is part of an assessment district, any outstanding assessments shall be equitably divided and levied against the remaining lots, parcels, or tracts, or be levied equitably on the lots resulting from the alteration. If any land within the alteration contains a dedication to the general use of persons residing within the subdivision, such land may be altered and divided equitably between the adjacent properties.
After approval of the alteration, the legislative body shall order the applicant to produce a revised drawing of the approved alteration of the final plat or short plat, which after signature of the legislative authority, shall be filed with the county auditor to become the lawful plat of the property.
This section shall not be construed as applying to the alteration or replatting of any plat of state-granted tide or shore lands [tidelands or shorelands].
[ 1987 c 354 s 4.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2006–2026 · leading case: Mark Hanna, et ux v. Allan Margitan, et ux, 373 P.3d 300 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mark Hanna, et ux v. Allan Margitan, et ux, 373 P.3d 300 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “The Hannas sought a declaration that the Margitans’ two private road easements along the switchback road were invalid, either because they did not show a present intent to convey property, or because they were ineffective attempts to alter the short plat without formal…”
MKKI, INC. v. Krueger, 145 P.3d 411 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “Pacific Alliance argues that the easements at issue here were for private use and that RCW 58.17.215 did not apply. ¶ 52 The County is a plaintiff in this action.”
M.K.K.I., Inc. v. Krueger, 135 Wash. App. 647 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “Pacific Alliance argues that the easements at issue here were for private use and that RCW 58.17.215 did not apply. ¶52 The County is a plaintiff in this action.”
Jones v. Town of Hunts Point, 272 P.3d 853 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “RCW 58.17.215. As one basis for denying Jones’ application, the town engineer noted that Jones did not submit an agreement to alter the restriction signed by other property owners who are subject to the restriction.”
Steven Lackey, Appellant/cross Resp v. David & Thuy Tiller, Respondent/cross App, 431 P.3d 524 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “Lackey asserts that Tiller's failure to follow the plat amendment procedures set forth in RCW 58.17.215 and then to appeal any adverse determination under Washington's Land Use Petition Act, chapter 36.”
Mark Avolio v. Cedars Golf, Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 15× “Because the appellants believed that the CCRs precluded any further subdivision of CG’s lots, they also believed that RCW 58.17.215, which governs the procedure required for subdivision alterations, required that CG obtain the agreement of all parties subject to the CCRs to…”
Michael S Pokorny, Etal v. Judd Tree Serv. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 13× “SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION The Pokornys claim that the superior court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to alter the property boundaries between Lots 54 and 55 because the designated legislative body within the city of Ocean Shores has exclusive authority to amend plats under…”
Fawn Lake Maint. Comm'n v. Abers, 149 Wash. App. 318 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “¶16 FLMC reasons that the Aberses did not legally create one lot from two because they did not comply with RCW 58.17.215 (setting forth procedures to alter a subdivision plat) and Mason County Code (M.”
Fawn Lake Maint. Com'n v. Abers, 202 P.3d 1019 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “¶ 16 FLMC reasons that the Aberses did not legally create one lot from two because they did not comply with RCW 58.17.215 (setting forth procedures to alter a subdivision plat) and Mason County Code (M.”
Picnic Point Pres. Comm. v. Snohomish Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 5× “If the subdivision is subject to restrictive covenants which were filed at the time of the approval of the subdivision, and the application for alteration would result in the violation of a covenant, the application shall contain an agreement signed by all parties subject to the…”
William E. Buchan, Inc., App/cross-resp v. The City Of Sammamish, Resps/cross-apps (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “"6 We accord deference to the hearing examiner's expertise, including in the construction of local statutes that the hearing examiner is entrusted to apply.”
Christopher Guest & Suzanne Guest v. David Lange & Karen Lange (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 3× “50138-4-II RCW 58.17.215 provides, in part, “When any person is interested in the alteration of any subdivision or the altering of any portion thereof, .”
Show all 16 citing cases →
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.