Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Training Findings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning staff trains board on quasi‑judicial duties, findings of fact and UDO standards
Summary
Zoning staff delivered a training for the Board of Zoning Appeals on the Unified Development Ordinance, the difference between variances and special exceptions, the required written findings of fact, and why clear motions protect decisions from being overturned in court.
City zoning staff provided a training session for the Board of Zoning Appeals at the end of the May 7 meeting, emphasizing the board’s quasi‑judicial role, the statutory and UDO standards for variances and special exceptions, and the necessity of clear written findings of fact in board orders.
Andrew Livingwood, the city’s zoning administrator, reviewed the UDO and state law distinctions that shape board decisions and said the board should treat findings of fact like a jury’s findings because circuit court review is limited to the administrative record. He told members to avoid decisions based solely on popularity or unspecific references to neighborhood sentiment and to ground approvals or denials explicitly in the written criteria.
Livingwood cited appellate decisions (Vulcan v. Greenville County; Austin v. Hilton Head; Windham v. North Augusta) as examples where insufficient findings or speculative reasoning led courts to overturn board actions. He walked the board through the typical findings required for variances (state baseline plus city additions) and the 12 standards applicable to special exceptions and recommended that staff provide stronger analysis in staff reports going forward to help the board draft defensible motions.
Livingwood urged the board to make concise but specific motions that incorporate findings tied to the statutory/UDO criteria: “The findings of fact aren't optional. Please do walk through those criteria before voting,” he told members. He also reminded members about procedural rules — sworn evidence only, ex parte communications limits, posting requirements, and that written orders become a permanent public record.
Why it mattered Clear written findings and properly framed motions reduce the risk that a successful appellant can overturn a board decision in circuit court. The training is intended to improve the legal robustness of the board’s orders and to speed case resolution by minimizing remands for incomplete records.
What’s next Staff said it will provide enhanced staff reports and a model motion framework for the board to use in future hearings.
