Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/07/1996

Home

Z.B. September 15, 1996- Page 7 The lower court improperly reversed the board's decision. The case was returned to the lower court to consider other issues Conetta raised (expansion and abandonment of the use). Based on the evidence, a reasonable board could find the business existed before the zoning regulations. The court should not have drawn its own fac- tual conclusions. Although the board accepted some evidence informally, for- mal rules of evidence did not apply. The only formal requirements for the board's hearing were that the board give Conetta notice of the hearing, the right to present evidence, and the right to cross-examine Sessa's witnesses. Conetta received all those things. If Conetta disagreed with.anything Sessa's attorney said, he could have cross-examined Sessa or the other witnesses to disprove, it. Without any legal or procedural flaws, the board's factual find- ings had to stand. Caserta v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 626 A.2d 744 (1993). ParsOns v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 99 A.2d 149 (1953). Environmental Issues -- To coaliti°n's chagrin, board says developer can fell 47 live oaks Sea Island Scenic Parkway Coalition v. Beaufort County Board of Adjustments and Appeals, 471- S.E. 2d 1_42 (South Carolina) 7_996 Under the zoning ordinance in Beaufont County, S.C., all disease-free trees with trunk diameters of 8 inches or larger were "protected trees." The county's Board of Adjustments and Appeals was not allowed to approve plans that contemplated removing more than 75 percent of the protected trees on a property. The ordinance also protected 12 kinds of trees -- including oaks no matter what their size. Those species were designated "endangered or valued trees," and their removal normally was not allowed. However, the board could grant deviations from literal enforcement of the ordinance if unnecessary and unusual hardship would result from a strict interpretation. Branch Development asked the board for permission to remove 47 live oaks from its property. Finding the plan would keep alive alt bat one of the biggest oaks on the property and destroy less than 24 percent of all the live oaks, the board allowed the request. As part of its findings, the board stated the ordinance gave it power to let people remove up to 75 percent of protected trees from a property. Sea Island Scenic Parkway Coalition asked a court to review the board's decision. According to the coalition, the board arbitrarily gave Branch Devel- opmen'f permission to remove the oaks. The coalition also claimed the board improperly found it had the power to allow removal of up to 75 percent of endangered and valued trees. The court reversed the board's decision. The state Supreme Court agreed to review the case. DECISION: Reversed, board's decision reinstated. The lower court improperly reversed the board's decision. The board's decision was not arbitrary, and did not contain any improper legal findings. Therefore, the decision was reinstated.