2902 HEWITT AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

� , i , ; to tne public, " that, at least, thz meeting must be conducted 1 in such a nanner that the conduct of the meeting is audible to the attending public. If a meeting is not conducted at an audible level, to thu�e in attendance, it cannot properly be said to have been "open to the public" within the meaning and spirit of RCW 42. 30. 060, and, v y an action taken at �uch � consequently, b the terms of RCW 42. 30.060, y ! meeting is "null and void. " � In addition to the invalidity of. the action taken at the variance hearing because of violations of the Open PuL'3ic Dleetings Act, the .? granting of a variance should be vacated because a vertatim record i � of the proceedings was not kept nor furnished for review. See � Beach v. Board of Adjustment of Snohomish Count , 73 Wn 2d 343, 439 � P. 2d 617 (1968) ; Bav�e v. Ritsap County, 84 Wn 2d 579, 527 P-2d 823 (1974) ; Loveless v. Yantis, 82 Wn 2d 754 , 513 P. 2d 1023 (1973) - � In Beach, su ra, the Court construed, inter alia, a section of the certiorari statute, - RCW 7.16 .120, which sets out five questions for the trial court to determine onti�e merits [ (1) whetY�er the _ agency`had jurisdiction; (2) whether the agency' s authority was pursued in the mode required by law; (3) whether any rule of law � whetlier there was any competent proof of all had been violateci; (4) • the facts necessary to be prove3; and (5? if there was such proof, whether there was, upon all the evidence, such a preponderance of proof against the existence thereof, rendered in an action in court, triable. by a jury. as would be set aside by the cuurt as againsL the weight of the evidence] , as evincing a legislative intent that a review of Board of Adjustment proceedings would, of necessity, -5-