REPLATS OF LAND ‑- SURVEY, NECESSITY ON REPLAT

REPLATS OF LAND ‑- SURVEY, NECESSITY ON REPLAT

1. A replat does not require a survey of the section in which the lands proposed to be replatted are situated.

2. The principal and surety on a road construction bond may forfeit prior to default with the consent of the county which may be, but should not be, given, unless it would be for the best interests of the county.

                                                                 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                                                                   June 25, 1951

Honorable R. A. Hensel
Prosecuting Attorney
Douglas County
Waterville, Washington                                                                                                                Cite as:  AGO 51-53 No. 79

Dear Sir:

            In your letter of June 11th you asked the following questions:

            1. Must a person desiring to replat a portion of an original plat furnish a complete survey of the section in which the land may be located?

            2. May a platter forfeit his road construction bond within one year?

            You are advised:

            1. A replat does not require a survey of the section in which the lands proposed to be replatted are situated.

            2. The principal and surety on a road construction bond may forfeit prior to default with the consent of the county which may be, but should not be, given, unless it would be for the best interests of the county.

                                                                     ANALYSIS

             [[Orig. Op. Page 2]]

            Chapter 186, Laws of 1937, sections 9304-1 et seq., Rem. Rev. Stat., Pocket Supp., (last amended by chapter 203, Laws of 1951), requires the furnishing of a complete survey of a section or sections, but refers to original filings, and does not repeal, by implication, chapter 92, Laws of 1903, as amended by chapter 139, Laws of 1927, sections 9311 et seq., Rem. Rev. Stat., which apply to the replatting of any portion of an original plat, and which do not require a survey of the section.

            Letter of April 13, 1944, to the Honorable Ian R. MacIver, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Yakima County.

            The facts before Judge MacIver in 1944 were identical with the facts confronting you.  Judge MacIver asked a further question regarding notice and service thereof under sections 9312 and 9313, Rem. Rev. Stat.  He suggested that since the entire tract proposed to be altered by replat was in one ownership, that no notice need be given.  We replied, advising that notice be given to every owner in the original plat.

            We now feel, and advise you, that notice should be issued under 9312, and served only on all of the owners of property in the portion of the original plat proposed to be altered by replat, and that if all such owners joined in the petition, notice still be served upon them, and the hearing held on the date fixed, not less than thirty nor more than sixty days, after filing of the petition.  In similar cases we believe it to be customary to post the notice on that portion of the original plat sought to be altered, and while the statute does not require this procedure, we approve it.

            Your second question presents a case for your opinion as to whether the rights of the county will be protected.

            A county has a right to build roads before, or after, default on the bond.

            It is the duty of county officials to proceed for the best interests of the county under your opinion, and we can only advise you that if on the facts you feel it would be for the best interests of the county to proceed prior to default on the road construction bond, the proper officials may do so.

Very truly yours,

SMITH TROY
Attorney General

E. P. DONNELLY
Assistant Attorney General