Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves the Mount Pleasant Board of Adjustment's appeal against a circuit court's decision that reversed its initial ruling prohibiting National Advertising Company, Inc. from repairing billboards damaged by Hurricane Hugo. The Board had denied repair permits based on zoning ordinances that limit repairs to nonconforming signs if costs exceed fifty percent of replacement costs and require repairs to commence within six months. The circuit court affirmed the Board's decision on the 'Quincy' sign but reversed the decision on the 'Channel 2' sign, citing a lack of evidence that repair costs exceeded fifty percent. The Supreme Court of South Carolina upheld the circuit court's ruling, finding insufficient evidence from the Board's expert testimony and clarifying that the repair cost was approximately forty percent of the replacement cost. Additionally, the Supreme Court determined that the six-month repair commencement provision did not apply to signs, emphasizing that specific provisions for signs take precedence over general zoning regulations. Consequently, the court affirmed the circuit court's order, allowing National to repair both signs.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Zoning Code 155.72(E)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court concluded that the provision requiring repairs to commence within six months did not apply to signs, thereby permitting repairs beyond this period.
Reasoning: The court also determined that section 155.72(E) did not apply to signs.
Precedence of Specific Zoning Provisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court emphasized that specific regulations regarding signs, governed by section 155.97, take precedence over general building repair provisions.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court rejected this argument, clarifying that sign regulations are specifically governed by section 155.97, which avoids conflict between the two sections.
Repair of Nonconforming Signs under Zoning Code 155.97(C)(1)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the repair costs for the 'Channel 2' sign did not exceed fifty percent of the replacement costs, allowing repairs to proceed.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court of South Carolina found no credible evidence from the Board's expert testimony regarding repair costs, affirming the circuit court's ruling that the repair cost was approximately forty percent of the replacement cost.