Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina; September 19, 2005; South Carolina; State Appellate Court
Blind Tiger, L.L.C. contested the circuit court's dismissal of its appeal regarding the Charleston County Board of Architectural Review's (the Board) decision, asserting that the dismissal was due to an untimely filing. The Blind Tiger, a pub in Charleston's historic district, made unauthorized alterations to its window design and sought retroactive approval from the Board after being informed by the Charleston Department of Design, Development, and Preservation that such changes required approval. The Board held a hearing on November 12, 2003, where it upheld the denial and ordered the removal of the unapproved alterations within ten days. Blind Tiger filed its appeal on February 2, 2004, eighty-two days post-hearing, which the circuit court dismissed as untimely per section 6-29-900 of the South Carolina Code.
This statute specifies that appeals must be filed within thirty days of actual notice of the Board’s decision. Although Blind Tiger claimed it received notice on January 30, 2004, it failed to adhere to the statutory requirement since the appeal was submitted well beyond the thirty-day period. The court affirmed the dismissal, emphasizing that Blind Tiger's argument did not align with the clear stipulations of the law governing appeals from the Board's decisions.
The mechanism for filing an appeal is based on actual notice of an adverse decision, defined as knowledge of the decision rather than the receipt of written notice. Actual notice occurs when a person is aware of the relevant facts or has the means to know them, even if they do not use those means. In this case, Blind Tiger's representatives were present at the Board's hearing on November 12, 2003, when the decision was made to require Blind Tiger to remove the film within ten days. Consequently, Blind Tiger had actual notice of the Board's decision on that date. Blind Tiger's appeal, filed 82 days later on February 2, 2004, was deemed untimely under section 6-29-900. The circuit court's dismissal of Blind Tiger's appeal on these grounds is affirmed. Additionally, the Charleston Zoning Code defines 'exterior architectural appearance' regarding visible elements from public thoroughfares.
