Court Opinion

ID: 9594266
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:28:32.144261+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:46.912277
License: Public Domain

Morgan, C.J.
(concurring) — I agree with the majority that the Shoreline Hearings Board (SHB) erred by considering the existence of the Meydenbauer facility. The Meyden-bauer facility is a nonconforming use, and as a matter of law, a nonconforming use should not be the basis for finding that a project is compatible with the surrounding area.
*595I agree with the majority that the SHB did not err in determining "that the proposed project satisfied the public access requirements of the SM A [Shoreline Management Act of 1971].” Majority, at 590. The majority does not state whether it considers the Board’s determination to be a matter of law or a matter of fact, but either way the determination is supportable.
I disagree with the majority that the SHB erred by basing its compatibility findings on an area that was too wide. Nothing in the law says that the SHB must look at surrounding property within 100 yards, 1,000 yards, or 12,000 yards. How to define the relevant area is necessarily a matter involving much discretion and, further, a question that depends on all the facts and circumstances of the case. Necessarily, it is a matter for the discretion of the trier of fact, and the trier of fact is the SHB. This court can override the SHB only if no reasonable person would have decided as the SHB did,10 yet the majority opinion does not even attempt to meet this standard. It simply substitutes the majority’s view of the facts for the Board’s view of the facts.
In conclusion, I agree that the case must be remanded to the Board for reconsideration. I agree that the Board should be instructed not to consider the existence of the Meyden-bauer facility. In all other respects, I believe the Board should be allowed to exercise its discretion in the manner provided by law.
Review denied at 124 Wn.2d 1029 (1994).

This is the same as saying that this court can override the SHB only if there is no substantial evidence, or if the SHB acted arbitrarily or capriciously. See RCW 34.05.570(3).