Laserfiche WebLink
:�-;. � . <br /> ��r�' � financial 2oss upon the applicant. Tnerefore , the Board ' s orde: <br /> I :�-`. <br /> ��� ,', ,•_ granting such variance should be vacated. <br /> '' '�;,• _ . . V I I � <br /> Pl� '! �' <br /> ,�' ' THE SOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, BEING A QUASI- ' <br /> �'�'• ' '` JUDICIAL BODY, MUST MARE FINDINGS OF FACT <br /> ;d^;r-�,, ARTICULATING THE BASIS FOR ITS DECI5ION, <br /> '�' NOT JUST L�GAL CONCLUSIONS IN TFIE WORDS <br /> �. ..; . , <br /> r', , - OF THE ORDINANCE ITSELF. FAILURE TO DO <br /> ,:i,,�: � <br /> � .�, r- SO CONSTITUTES ARF3[TRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, . <br /> �';; "�, ANA ULTRA VIRES G'ONDUCT. ; <br /> Section 19.70.060 of the Everett Municipal Code, quoted , <br /> : <br /> above at page 8 , requires that the Board of Adjnstment find <br /> 7 <br /> that i'our specified facts and •conditions exist before it grants a <br /> variance. • <br /> Where an ordinance or statute imposes a requirement that <br /> findings of fa.ct be made by the Board of Adjustment, the Boarfl <br /> abuses its discretion L�y failing to act within the standards imposed <br /> by the ordinance where it fails to make the required findings or <br /> i <br /> reasons for its action. Beyers v Bd of Clallam Covnty Commissioners, <br /> 84 Wn 2d 796 , 799,529 F.2d 823 (1974) ; American Law of Zoning, su ra,- :- <br /> §20. 41, pp �39-40. �� <br /> A Board of Adjustment exercises quasi-judicial powers. Beach <br /> v. Bd. of Ad�ustment of Snohomish County, supra•at S Adequate <br /> findinys af fact are necessary s� that a reviewina court can determine <br /> whether the Board acted properly and within the limites of its <br /> authority. <br /> "Since judicial review of the conduct of the boards of <br /> adjustment usually is not accomplished thrcugh a trial <br /> de novo, but tnrough a review based primarily upon the <br /> record made before the boar, the tas�: of the court will <br /> var; in its complexity with the completenesG of the <br /> -13- <br />