Heilker v. Zoning Board of Appeals

I respectfully dissent. In my view, whether Heilker’s placement of “indoor” furniture on the outside of his business constitutes a nonconforming “use” is a question of law for this *413Court. Furthermore, I would find Heilker’s business practice is a nonconforming use and affirm.

As an initial matter, I agree we must defer to a zoning board’s factual findings if there is any evidence in the record to support them. See Vulcan, 342 S.C. at 488, 536 S.E.2d at 896 (describing deferential standard of review to equate zoning board’s findings of fact with those of a jury, i.e., that such findings “will…