Abbeville Arms v. City of Abbeville, 21023

• Decision Date: 02 August 1979
• Docket Number: No. 21023,21023
• Citation: 257 S.E.2d 716,273 S.C. 491
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: ABBEVILLE ARMS, Respondent, v. CITY OF ABBEVILLE and Manley J. Horton as Representative of a Class, Respondents, of which City of Abbeville is Appellant. ABBEVILLE ARMS, Respondent, v. CITY OF ABBEVILLE and Manley J. Horton, as Representative of a Class, of which Manley J. Horton, as Representative of a Class is Appellant.

Page 716

257 S.E.2d 716

273 S.C. 491

ABBEVILLE ARMS, Respondent, v. CITY OF ABBEVILLE and Manley J. Horton as Representative of

a Class, Respondents, of which City of Abbeville

is Appellant.

ABBEVILLE ARMS, Respondent, v. CITY OF ABBEVILLE and Manley J. Horton, as Representative of

a Class, of which Manley J. Horton, as

Representative of a Class is Appellant.

No. 21023.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Aug. 2, 1979.

Harold P. Threlkeld, of McIntosh, Threlkeld, Glenn & Sherard, Anderson, for Manley J. Horton, as Representative of a Class.

Robert L. Hawthorne, Jr., Abbeville, for City of Abbeville.

Frank E. Robinson, II, of Lewis, Lewis, Robinson & Arnold, Columbia, and Thurmond Bishop, of Bishop & Hughston, Greenwood, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is brought from a lower court order directing the City of Abbeville to issue respondent a building permit for the construction of a multifamily housing project and to provide the necessary municipal services to which respondent is entitled. We affirm.

In early 1977, respondent obtained an option to purchase certain real property located within the corporate limits of the City of Abbeville. This option was obtained with the intent of constructing a multi-family housing project and was subject to proper zoning. Respondent subsequently reviewed the Abbeville Zoning Ordinance, including the Official Zoning Map, and obtained a letter from the City Zoning Administrator, all of which confirmed that the subject property was zoned R-6 High Density Residential. That zoning would allow the construction of the proposed multi-family housing project.

In reliance on the Abbeville Zoning Ordinance, Official Zoning Map, and the letter from the City Zoning Administrator, respondent expended between $90,000.00 and $100,000.00 for property acquisition, architectural and engineering fees, loan commitments and other development costs. On or about August 17, 1978, respondent applied for a building permit from the City of Abbeville. On August 22, 1978, the Abbeville City Council adopted a resolution declaring that through "inadvertence, mistake, or oversight" the "Official Zoning Map, which was adopted in 1971, was made up defectively and that the subject property is now and always has been zoned R-8 Medium Density Residential. That zoning would not allow the proposed multi-family housing project. The Abbeville City Council also ordered the Official Zoning Map revised to reflect the correction.

On August 23, 1978, respondent's application for a building permit was denied on the basis that the uses allowed under the corrected R-8 Medium Density Residential zoning did not include the proposed multi-family housing project. Respondent then instituted this civil action. After a hearing, the lower court ruled that the City of Abbeville was estopped by its representations and actions from denying respondent the building permit.

The City of Abbeville and Manley J. Horton, as a representative of a class of residents of the area surrounding the subject property, have appealed, first alleging that the lower court erred in holding that a municipality can be estopped by the erroneous representations of its officers, agents, zoning ordinance and Official Zoning Map.

This Court has previously recognized that estoppel will not lie against a governmental body for the unauthorized acts of its officers and agents. Looper v. City of Easley, 172 S.C. 11, 172 S.E. 705 (1934); Farrow v. City Council of Charleston, 169 S.C. 373, 168 S.E. 852 (1933). However, this doctrine does not provide immunity for the governmental body where its officers or agents were acting within the proper scope of their authority. Townes v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 221 S.E.2d 773 (1976); Farrow v. City Council of Charleston, supra. In the instant case, it is clear that the Abbeville City Council was acting within the scope of its authority in enacting a zoning ordinance, including an Official Zoning Map. (Generally see S.C.Code §§ 5-5-10 Et seq., 5-7-10 Et seq., 5-23-10 Et seq. (1976)). Additionally, there is no evidence whatsoever that the City Zoning Administrator was acting outside the scope of his authority in issuing the letter confirming that the property was zoned R-6...