Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/09/1995

Home

October 1995 -- Page 7 Varianc6 -- Board Uses Preprinted Form as Factual Findings Shoney's of Enka Inc. v. Board of Adjustrnent for the City of Asheville, 458 S.E. 2d 51_0 (North Carolina) 1995 Shoney's of Enka Inc. wanted to build a new sign on property near the inter- section of!two highways in the city of Asheville, N.C. The company applied for a variance from certain zoning ordinance requirements so it could erect the sign. The city's Board of Adjustment held a hearing on the company's request. The board members voted 3-2 in favor of the variance, but state law required a four-fifthi~ vote for a board to grant a variance. Therefore, the board denied the apphcatmn. The bbard used a form to state the reasons for its denial. The form con- tained six~ preprinted conclusions, each corresponding to different standards from the Ordinance. They had language the board Could choose to reflect whether it found e~ch standard had been met (e.g., "It is the Board's conclusion that, if the appli0ant complies strictly with the provisions of this article, the applicant (can/cann~)t) make reasonable use of the sign allowed."). After each printed statement~.was the phrase, "This conclusion is based on the following findings of fact." For each standard, the board found against the company's interest. Only after~ the first conclusion did it attempt to write any findings.. Its finding was, "Petitioner did not satisfy requirements set forth in opening statement." Shone~y's appealed. The court affirmed the board's decision, and Shoney's appealed tgain. It claimed the board did not support its decision with enough factual fi~ idings to permit review by the courts. ? DECISIO N: Reversed and returned to the trial court. Becau~Se the board's decision was not supported by sufficient findings of fact, the lc ~ver court should not have affirmed it. The lower court was instructed to send the case back to theboard for further proceedings. The board's findings were conclusory and gave no guidance about the rea- soning. A~I the printed form did was reiterate language from the relevant sec- tion of theiordinance. The board decided to rely on only that language, and did not make Ony written findings. Although the ordinance required written find- ings only When a board granted a variance, other law made clear that a board's findings had to be sufficient. Without an adequate record, the courts could not determine iwhether the board acted arbitrarily or committed any errors of law. ShoneY's of Enka v. Board of Adjustment for City of Asheville, 444 S.E. 2d 494 (1994). Zoning Change -- International Health Organization Plans Headquarters in ResideNtial Zone Pan A~izerican Health Organization v. Montgome~y County, 657 A.2d 1163 (Maryland) 1995 MontgOmery County, Md., was a charter county under the Home Rule Amendment to the Maryland Constitution. A state law enacted in 1939 --the Regional District Act (Act) made the county part of the "Regional District."