2902 HEWITT AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

;,`� ' ,:� : � .: consideration, an� in disregard of the iacts; where there is $: irrational, unlawful or ultra vires zoning action or inaction. �,j � State ex rel Randall v. Snohomish Count , 79 Wn. 2d 619, 486 P.2d 511 (1971) ; State Ex rel Carnenter v Everett Board of Adjust��ent, � 7 Wash. App. 930, 503 P.2d 1141 (1972) ; Bishop v. Houghton, 69 Wn. , . 2d 78E , 420 P.2d 368 (1966) ; State ex rel Myhre v. Spokane, 70 h'n. �' 2d 207, 422 P.2d 790 (1967) ; Farrell r. Seattle, 75 Wn 2d 540, \� 452 P.2d 965 (1469) ; Chestnut Hill Co. v. 5nohomish, 76 Wn 2d, 458 ai P.2d 891, cert. den. 397 U.S. 98B, 25 L.Ed.2d 396 , 90 S. Ct. ?119: � and Lutz v. Longview, 83 Wn 2d 56E, 520 P. 2d 1374 (1974) . ? . � Such conduct on the part of the Everett IIoard of Adjustment � • has occurred in this case. i` � Certiorari proceedings are ordinarily regarded as the appro- priate mode of review of decisions of zoning authorities. Pierce v. King County, 62 Wn 2d 324 , 362 P.2d 628 (1963) . . III. THE ROARD'S DECISION GRANTING A VARIANCE IS INVALID BBCAUSE THE HEARING WAS NOT IN CONFOI2I�SANCE_ WITH OPEN PUiiLIC MEETINGS 'ACT AND A-VERBATIM RECORD {JAS NOT KEPT. In RCW 42 . 30.010, of the �pen Public Meetings Act, RCW C:�. 42. 30, the Washington legislature declared that it is the intent of this chapter that all public agencies of this State and subdivisions there- of [which under RCW 42.30.02U (1) (c) includes the Everett Board of Adjustment) take_. their actions (defined as the transaction of official business; RCW 42. 30.020 (3) ] ooenly and that their deliber- ations be conducted openly. To this end, RCtJ :2. 30.030 declares that all meetings of the governing bodies of such aaencies s�all ue open and public, and that all persons shall be permitted to attend any • -3-