6427 BEVERLY LN 2016-01-01 MF Import

No. 1169-I c v. Gibbs, 47 �9n.2d 629, 633, 289 P.2d 203 (19;5), the court stated: Arbitrary and capricious action of �dministrative bodies means �•�illful and unreasoning action, wit-hout consideration and in disre9ar�i of facts or circumstances. Where there is room for two opinions, action is not arbi- trary or capricious when exercised honestly and upon due consideration, even though it may be believed that an erroneuus conclusion has been reached. In State ex rel. Kadoco v. Bd. of Adjus., 77 �9n.2d 567, 5°2, 964 P.2d 416 (1970), the court said: And, we are sati.sfied the board did not act arbitrar- ily, capriciously, or unreasonably in granting the exception. The record befere us indicates that the board heard without undue limitation the evidence and arguments presented ior and against the application at two public hearings; called for and received staff study and recommendations cencerning the proposal and its compliance wit-h applicable setback, height, bulk, coverage, traffic, and density requi•rements as well as its potential effect upon surrounding properties; gave careful consideration to all factors involved and reached a decision upon a c7uestion about �ohich reasonable minds could differ. Arbitrary, unreasoning or capricious action cannot, under these circumstances, be attributed to the board. Lillions v. Gibbs, 47 tan.2d 629, 2B9 P.2d 203 (1955). See also Chestnut fiill Co. v. Snohomish, 7G 47n.2d 741, 458 P.2d 891 (1969); Bishop v. }3oughton, 69 Wn.?.d 786, 420 P.2d 368 (1966). Petitioner then claims that he was denied an opportunity ; to'be heard during the executive session of the board attended only by the commissioners and the board secretaiy, Mr. Bennett. During the executive session, Mr. I3ennett advised the Board of Adjustment as to the facts, gave his opinion as to the proper interpretation of the code, and participated in the discussions of the IIoard of Adjustment. The board adopted Mr. IIennett's recommendation that the petitioner's application to erect a radio tower be denied. Petitioncr argucs that, by permitting Dis. Bennett to express views adverse to that of the petit.ioner �vithout at the same time hearing from the petitioner during the e>:ecutive 5.