## Facts

- Charles B. Ames and his wife farmed about 190 acres and sought to use contract migrant labor due to unreliable local labor during harvest.
- They owned a 52-acre tract near the Town of Painter containing a tenant house previously used to house migrant workers.
- The property was zoned Agricultural District A; a migrant labor camp was allowed only by special use permit under the county zoning ordinance.
- The Ameses applied to the Accomack County Board of Zoning Appeals for a special use permit to convert the house into a camp for 20 occupants.
- Nearby landowners and residents opposed the proposal: ten of fourteen owners within 500 feet disapproved, and 226 residents signed a petition objecting.
- After a hearing with competing testimony (including concerns about neighborhood character and property values), the Board granted a special use permit limited to ten occupants.
- The Board’s written action granted the permit without findings of fact, conclusions, or stated reasons addressing the ordinance’s standards.
- The Town of Painter and neighboring landowners sought certiorari review; the circuit court reversed and dismissed the application, and the Ameses appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a board of zoning appeals acts reasonably when it grants a special use permit without findings or reasons showing that it applied the zoning ordinance’s required standards.
2. Whether a “silent record” can sustain the presumption of reasonableness and the “fairly debatable” standard on judicial review of a legislative zoning determination.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the circuit court’s judgment reversing the permit and dismissing the application.
- The Board acted in a legislative capacity and ordinarily receives a presumption of reasonableness reviewed under the “fairly debatable” standard.
- The presumption was overcome because the Board’s record and written action did not show consideration or application of the ordinance’s required criteria (including neighborhood character and effects on neighboring property rights and values).
- Without findings or reasons resolving the conflicting evidence, the reviewing court could not treat the Board’s decision as “fairly debatable,” and the action was properly set aside as unreasonable.

## Legal Principles

- A board of zoning appeals deciding a special use permit under delegated authority acts in a legislative capacity; its decision is presumptively reasonable and will be upheld if the matter is “fairly debatable.”
- “Fairly debatable” exists when objective and reasonable persons could reach different conclusions based on the evidence.
- The presumption of reasonableness may be rebutted by evidence of unreasonableness.
- Even with legislative deference, the board must follow the substantive standards set by the zoning ordinance and create a record showing that those standards were applied.
- A permit grant unsupported by findings or stated reasons, especially where the record contains substantial objections on ordinance-relevant factors, can be reversed because the silent record fails to support reasonableness on review.

## Conclusion

The court upheld reversal of the special use permit because the zoning board granted approval without findings or reasons demonstrating compliance with the ordinance’s standards, leaving a record insufficient to sustain the presumption of reasonableness under the fairly debatable test.


Ames v. Town of Painter, 239 Va. 343, 389 S.E.2d 702 (Va. 1990)