2902 HEWITT AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

. -_ In appraising th� adequacy of the findings, the reviec,inc � court should determine whether the finings mandated by oriiinancz � � have in fact been made. American Law of 2oning, supra, §19. 70.060 � of the Everett Municipal Code. This deficiency is disc�ssed supra I in Section IV of this brief, and should, in itself, invalidate the Board's action. American Law of Zonin , supra, §20. 93. Beyond this, however, the reviewing court should appraise � the findings in light of the purposes for which findings are required to be made. American Law of Zoning, §20.42. The requirement that the Boazd of Adjustment make findings which disclose the basis for its � decision means more than/tt]i��Board must state it� general conclusiori. Findings which are merely conclusory in form are insufficient. American Law of -Zoning, supra, �20.44 . It is clear that the requirement that a Board of Adjustment make appropriate findings is not met by a mere restatement of the terms of the applicable statute or ordinance. American Law of Zonina , g20.44, at 551. " . . .no administrative body fulfills its quasi-judicial responsibility by merely repeating the applicabl2 ,. _ statutory language in arriving at its conclusions. Nor does a summary of testimony and contentions constitute findings of fact in the absende of a statement revealing which factual contentions the Board accepts. " A.L.W. , Inc. v. District of Columbia Board of Adjustment, 338 A. 2d 928 (1975, Dist. Col. App. ) . There is not basis for intelligent judicial review where the findiags of fact do not revewl the actual grounds for the decision. In the instant case, the Board of Adjustment merely recited in the language of the ordinance, three of the four required findings, and made no attempt to articulate what facts it £ound, based upon the -15- �