Shaw v. Clallam County

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that “the Board’s finding that the proposed expansion will increase traffic is not supported by substantial evidence of record” since “[tjhere is absolutely no evidence other than the speculative testimony of the neighbors that there will be an increase in traffic congestion.”
• stating that “a conditional use is nothing more than a special exception which falls within the jurisdiction of the municipal legislative body, rather than the zoning hearing board”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).