Could a town planning director also sit on a South Carolina county zoning appeals board?

Plain-English summary

A deputy county attorney asked whether the planning director for the Town of Hollywood could also sit on Charleston County’s Board of Zoning Appeals. The May 2001 informal opinion said no. It read the state planning statute’s ban on a board member holding another public office or position in the municipality or county to disqualify municipal and county employees.

The office relied on its earlier interpretation of nearly identical language in a predecessor statute. It found no reason to withdraw that view after the legislature used the same restriction in the later planning law. The conclusion addressed this particular combination of public employment and zoning-board service.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2001. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical summary

Zoning appeals boards

The AG treated the statutory ban on another public “office or position” as reaching local government employees, including the planning director described in the request.

Municipal planning staff

The letter concluded that employment as Hollywood’s planning director disqualified the person from simultaneous membership on Charleston County’s appeals board.

Common questions

Did the restriction cover employees as well as elected officers? A: Yes. The AG adopted the earlier office view that it disqualified county and municipal officers and employees.

Could the town planning director serve on the county board at the same time? A: The opinion said no for the described positions.

Did the 1994 planning law change the earlier interpretation? A: The letter said the legislature retained essentially the same restriction, and the office saw no reason to overrule its prior view.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion applied § 6-29-780(B) of the South Carolina Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1994. It cited State v. Martin for legislative-intent analysis and compared the current restriction with the earlier zoning-board provision.

Citations and references

• § 6-29-780(B): the board-member restriction at issue.
• State v. Martin: statutory interpretation principle cited by the AG.

Official title

Concerning “whether simultaneous membership on the Charleston County Board of Zoning Appeals and employment as the Planning Director for the Town of Hollywood, South Carolina violates § 6-29-780(B) of the South Carolina Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1994.”

Requester

Mr. Joseph Dawson, III, Esq.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/may-22-2001/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/01may-22-dawson.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLIE CONDON
ATIORNEY GENERAL

I

May 22, 2001

Mr. Joseph Dawson, III, Esq.
Deputy County Attorney
2 Courthouse Square, Room 401
Charleston, South Carolina 29401

Re:

Informal Opinion

Dear Mr. Dawson:
By your letter of May 9, 2001, you have asked "whether simultaneous membership on the Charleston County Board of Zoning Appeals and employment as the Planning Director for the Town of Hollywood, South Carolina, violates§ 6-29-780(B) of the South Carolina Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1994." A discussion of your question requires the employment of a few basic principles of statutory construction. The primary goal of statutory interpretation is to ascertain the intent of the General Assembly. State v. Martin, 293 S.C. 46, 358 S.E.2d 697 (1987). Moreover, the statute's words must be given their plain and ordinary meaning without resort to a forced or subtle construction which would work to limit or to expand the statute's operation. State v. Blackmon, 304 S.C. 270, 403 S.E.2d 660 (1991). As stated in your letter, the Charleston County Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") was created pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§ 6-29-780, 790 and 800. Section 6-29-780 describes the composition of the BZA and imposes the following restriction on board members: "[n ]one of the members shall hold any other public office or position in the municipality or county." Language virtually identical to this also appeared in§ 6-7-740, the predecessor to § 6-29-780. In an Attorney General's Opinion dated April 16, 1991 (enclosed), this Office addressed whether the prohibition on holding any other public office or position would preclude an employee of the Horry County Register of Mesne Conveyances from serving on the Horry County Zoning Board of Adjustments. Applying

REMBERT C. DENNIS BUILDING

12e~ cV~A .

•

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

COLUMBIA,

s.c. 29211-1549 • TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970 • FACSIMJLE: 803-253-6283

Mr. Dawson
Page2
May 22, 2001
the restriction's terms in accordance with their plain and ordinary meanings, this Office concluded: "[i]n our view, the General Assembly must have intended to disqualify two different categories of individuals from service on zoning boards of appeals or adjustments: county or municipal officers and employees." (Emphasis added.) As we have previously discussed, this Office does not withdraw or overrule a prior opinion unless it is clearly erroneous or unless intervening circumstances warrant such. Since the General Assembly included the "no public office or position" restriction in the South Carolina Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1994, I am unable to conclude that the opinion of April 16, 1991 was clearly erroneous. Accordingly, it is my opinion that pursuant to S.C. Code Ann.§ 6-29-780(B), the Planning Director forthe Town of Hollywood is disqualified from simultaneously serving on the Charleston County Board of Zoning Appeals. I trust this information is responsive to your inquiry and that you will not hesitate to contact me ifl can be of additional assistance. This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Deputy Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions asked. It has not been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opm10n. With kind regards, I am

I

Sincerely yours,

I

Zeb C. Williams, III
Deputy Attorney General

.

ZCW/an
Enclosure