The Charleston Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Charleston Cnty., 2021-UP-449

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Docket Number: 2021-UP-449
• Parties: The Charleston County School District, Appellant, v. Charleston County, South Carolina; The Charleston County Board of Zoning Appeals; and Joel Evans in his capacity as Director of the Charleston County Zoning and Planning Department, Respondents.
• Decision Date: 15 December 2021

The Charleston County School District, Appellant,
v.
Charleston County, South Carolina; The Charleston County Board of Zoning Appeals; and Joel Evans in his capacity as Director of the Charleston County Zoning and Planning Department, Respondents.

No. 2021-UP-449

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

December 15, 2021

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

Heard November 3, 2021

Appeal From Charleston County Jennifer B. McCoy, Circuit Court Judge

Jamie A. Khan and Ross A. Appel, both of McCullough Khan, LLC, of Mount Pleasant, for Appellant.

Jeremy E. Bowers, of Barnwell Whaley Patterson & Helms, LLC, of Charleston; and Deputy County Attorneys Bernard E. Ferrara, Jr. and Edward L. Knisley, Jr., both of Charleston, all for Respondents.

1

PER CURIAM

In this civil matter, the Charleston County School District (the District) appeals the circuit court's order affirming the findings of the Charleston County Board of Zoning Appeals (the BZA), which affirmed the administrative decision of the Charleston County Planning Director (the Planning Director) to deny the District's request seeking an extension to complete the conditions of its site plan approval issued pursuant to the Charleston County Zoning and Land Development Regulations Ordinance (the ZLDR). We affirm.

We find the circuit court did not err in affirming the BZA's finding that the District failed to timely appeal the Planning Director's decision. See Boehm v. Town of Sullivan's Island Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 423 S.C. 169, 182, 813 S.E.2d 874, 880 (Ct. App. 2018) (providing that this court applies the same standard of review as the circuit court in matters involving appeals from the BZA); id. ("In reviewing the questions presented by the appeal, th[is] court shall determine only whether the decision of the [BZA] is correct as a matter of law." (quoting Austin v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 362 S.C. 29, 33, 606 S.E.2d 209, 211 (Ct. App. 2004)); S.C. Code Ann. § 6-29-840(A) (Supp. 2020) ("The findings of fact by the board of appeals must be treated in the same manner as a finding of fact by a jury, and the court may not take additional evidence."). The Planning Director denied the District's request for an extension via letter to ADC Engineering, Inc. on February 28, 2018. Therefore, the District was required to file its application for an appeal to the BZA no later than March 30, 2018. See ZLDR § 3.7 (addressing the Planning Department's...