Court Opinion

ID: 9586348
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:09:46.337255+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:47.044977
License: Public Domain

Finley, J.
(concurring) — The majority’s resolution of this case is based upon two propositions: first, the requirement of “fairness in appearance” (or lack thereof) established by Smith v. Skagit County, 75 Wn.2d 715, 453 P.2d 832 (1969); and, additionally, upon the determination that the county zoning ordinance disputed herein amounted to spot zoning. I agree with the majority’s disposition of this appeal upon the aforementioned bases, and I have signed the majority opinion.
I am in particular agreement with the comments of the majority opinion at pages 893-94 regarding the appearance of fairness doctrine. However, some additional brief comment on the appearance of fairness doctrine or standard seems to me appropriate. Rationally evaluated, this standard of legislative conduct is, perhaps, more aligned with subjective, rather than objective analysis and evaluation. Nevertheless, in my opinion, there is much to be said for the application of what could possibly be termed a “subjective” standard in the judicial review of zoning actions by local legislative bodies.
Unquestionably, today’s modern zoning has become a fact of modem life. In earlier, perhaps more pastoral or rural times, the concepts of public nuisance or common law nuisance were probably the most likely — yet limited — legal theories available or adaptable for land-use planning. But, later day concepts of modern zoning mandated by modern necessities have undergone a rapid and expansive develop*874mental process in order to supplement or overcome the inadequacies of common law theory.
The increase in population, its growing concentration or urbanization, and an infinite variety of modern land uses have precipitated an insistent social need for modern and effective land-use planning, i.e., zoning. Modern zoning, therefore, has become a vitally important consideration relative to the ownership and use of land and probably will become increasingly so. Inherent in this is, of course, the importance of the sensitive nature of individual rights involved in decisions affecting the use and enjoyment of land.
Considering this broad frame of reference and the broad impact of zoning on the lives of such a large percentage of our population — urban and suburban, as well as rural— the appearance of fairness relative to zoning becomes of paramount importance. In my judgment, no less than the highest standards of due process must be demanded of local legislative bodies in the formulation and the implementation of zoning determinations. In making such determination, in other words, justice not only must be done; justice must be seen to be done.
For these reasons I concur in the majority’s resolution of this case and its adherence to the appearance of fairness standard announced in Smith v. Skagit County, supra.