Bailey v. Rutledge, No. 0902

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtCURETON; SANDERS, C.J., and GOOLSBY
Citation291 S.C. 512,354 S.E.2d 408
PartiesWilliam J. BAILEY, Respondent, v. J.D. RUTLEDGE, Lucille Battle, William Steele, Paul H. Shelton, Jr., and Alvin Gainey, as Members of the Board of Adjustment of the City of Seneca, Appellants. . Heard
Docket NumberNo. 0902
Decision Date24 February 1987

Page 408

354 S.E.2d 408
291 S.C. 512
William J. BAILEY, Respondent,
v.
J.D. RUTLEDGE, Lucille Battle, William Steele, Paul H.
Shelton, Jr., and Alvin Gainey, as Members of the
Board of Adjustment of the City of
Seneca, Appellants.
No. 0902.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
Heard Feb. 24, 1987.
Decided March 16, 1987.

Page 409

John W. Fields, Seneca, and Alexander S. Macauley, of Miley & Macaulay, P.A., Walhalla, for appellants.

N. Gruber Sires, Jr., Seneca, and Theodore A. Snyder, Jr., Walhalla, for respondent.

[291 S.C. 513] CURETON, Judge:

In this zoning appeal, the circuit court reversed a decision of the Board of Adjustment of the City of Seneca which denied respondent William J. Bailey's request for a variance to the City's zoning ordinance to permit an addition to his child care facility. We reverse.

In 1978, a child care center was established on the lot involved in this appeal. Effective January 1, 1984, the City of Seneca revised its zoning ordinance so that the day care center was placed in a R-15 (one-family residential) zone. Child care centers are not permitted in R-15 zones; however, the ordinance permitted the child care center to continue to operate in the zone as a nonconforming use.

Bailey purchased the center in September 1984. In 1985 he applied to the Board of Adjustment for a variance for permission to enlarge "a nonconforming use for [the] addition [of] 1 classroom 24' times 36'." After a hearing, the Board of Adjustment denied Bailey's request. Bailey then appealed to the circuit court.

In his appeal to the circuit court, Bailey contended that as a matter of law he had a vested right to construct the addition to his child care facility as part of a prior nonconforming use. He also contended that the action of the Board of Adjustment in denying the variance was arbitrary and capricious. The Board responded to Bailey's appeal and petition for review of its actions by alleging that under the City's zoning ordinance a nonconforming use could not be enlarged or altered without a variance, and that the variance had been properly denied.

Relying on the case of Conway v. City of Greenville, 254 S.C. 96, 173 S.E.2d 648 (1970), the trial court held that Bailey had acquired a vested right to use his entire lot for child care purposes, because the facts demonstrated that the entire lot had been appropriated to child care use before the zoning ordinance was amended.

We are asked first to decide whether an owner who purchases property after the effective date of a change to a zoning ordinance acquires a vested right to enlarge a nonconforming[291 S.C. 514] use in violation of the zoning ordinance. To properly focus on this issue, we note that the issue here presented does not involve the right of a land owner to continue a nonconforming use as in James v. City of Greenville, 227 S.C. 565, 88 S.E.2d 661 (1955). Nor does it involve a factual determination whether a property owner was using all of his property for a specific purpose prior to the advent of zoning as was the case in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Hughes v. Oconee County, 2007-UP-461
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • October 11, 2007
    ...a question for the jury. We hold, therefore, the trial judge erred in reducing the damages awarded by the jury. 291 S.C. at 511, 354 S.E.2d at 408. 4. Employment Contracts "An employment contract may be either for a stated term or at will." Young v. McKelvey, 286 S.C. 119, 123, 33......
  • Hughes v. Oconee Cnty., 2007-UP-461
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • October 11, 2007
    ...a question for the jury. We hold, therefore, the trial judge erred in reducing the damages awarded by the jury. 291 S.C. at 511, 354 S.E.2d at 408. 4. Employment Contracts An employment contract may be either for a stated term or at will.” Young v. McKelvey, 286 S.C. 119, 123, 333 S.E.2d 56......
  • Heilker v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, No. 3374.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • July 23, 2001
    ...added); accord Fairfield Ocean Ridge, Inc. v. Town of Edisto Beach, 294 S.C. 475, 366 S.E.2d 15 (Ct.App.1988); Bailey v. Rutledge, 291 S.C. 512, 354 S.E.2d 408 (Ct.App.1987). The new statute, § 6-27-840, is also very deferential to a board's findings of fact as it equates them to a jury's f......
  • City of Myrtle Beach v. Juel P. Corp., No. 3049.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • September 20, 1999
    ...generally recognized that 337 S.C. 173 nonconforming uses detract from the public purpose to be achieved by the plan. Bailey v. Rutledge, 291 S.C. 512, 354 S.E.2d 408 (Ct.App.1987). As such, they are not favored, and they should be made conforming as soon as reasonably possible. See id. Whi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Hughes v. Oconee County, 2007-UP-461
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • October 11, 2007
    ...a question for the jury. We hold, therefore, the trial judge erred in reducing the damages awarded by the jury. 291 S.C. at 511, 354 S.E.2d at 408. 4. Employment Contracts "An employment contract may be either for a stated term or at will." Young v. McKelvey, 286 S.C. 119, 123, 33......
  • Hughes v. Oconee Cnty., 2007-UP-461
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • October 11, 2007
    ...a question for the jury. We hold, therefore, the trial judge erred in reducing the damages awarded by the jury. 291 S.C. at 511, 354 S.E.2d at 408. 4. Employment Contracts An employment contract may be either for a stated term or at will.” Young v. McKelvey, 286 S.C. 119, 123, 333 S.E.2d 56......
  • Heilker v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, No. 3374.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • July 23, 2001
    ...added); accord Fairfield Ocean Ridge, Inc. v. Town of Edisto Beach, 294 S.C. 475, 366 S.E.2d 15 (Ct.App.1988); Bailey v. Rutledge, 291 S.C. 512, 354 S.E.2d 408 (Ct.App.1987). The new statute, § 6-27-840, is also very deferential to a board's findings of fact as it equates them to a jury's f......
  • City of Myrtle Beach v. Juel P. Corp., No. 3049.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • September 20, 1999
    ...generally recognized that 337 S.C. 173 nonconforming uses detract from the public purpose to be achieved by the plan. Bailey v. Rutledge, 291 S.C. 512, 354 S.E.2d 408 (Ct.App.1987). As such, they are not favored, and they should be made conforming as soon as reasonably possible. See id. Whi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT