Ex parte La Quinta Motor Inns, Inc., 0025
| Decision Date | 19 December 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 0025,0025 |
| Citation | 310 S.E.2d 438,279 S.C. 598 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Ex parte LA QUINTA MOTOR INNS, INC., Respondent. In re GREENVILLE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, S.W. Day, Zoning Administrator, Greenville County, South Carolina, Appellant. |
Clifford F. Gaddy, Jr., of Gaddy & Davenport, Greenville, for appellant.
James H. Cassidy, of Robertson & Cassidy, Greenville, for respondent.
La Quinta Motor Inns, Inc. applied to the Greenville County Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance from the County Zoning Ordinance. The Board refused to grant the variance, and La Quinta appealed the denial to the circuit court. The circuit court reversed the Board and granted La Quinta the requested variance. The Board now appeals. We reverse the Order of the lower court.
La Quinta applied for the variance to enable it to construct a sign 85 feet in height in a C-2 zoning district that had a height limitation of 45 feet. A hearing was held by the Board at which time both parties had an opportunity to present evidence. The Board thereafter issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law wherein it denied the variance. Although an adjoining property contained an 85 foot sign, the Board found that the adjoining sign was constructed prior to the effective date of the zoning ordinance and constituted a non conforming use. The Board also found that La Quinta knew or should have known when it acquired the property that a 45 foot sign would have its view obscured by the terrain and planned highway overpasses. The Board reasoned that La Quinta failed to establish special conditions and circumstances that did not result from its own actions.
The lower court found that construction of the overpasses constituted special conditions and circumstances that were peculiar to La Quinta's land. Since La Quinta played no role in the construction of the overpasses, the lower court found the special conditions and circumstances were not the result of La Quinta's actions.
The findings of the Zoning Board of Appeals should be upheld if its decision is based on sufficient evidence. Hodge v. Pollock, 223 S.C. 342, 75 S.E.2d 752 (1953); Application of Groves, 226 S.C. 459, 85 S.E.2d 708 (1955). Likewise, its decision should stand unless it is arbitrary or clearly erroneous. Talbot v. Myrtle Beach Board of Adjustment, 222 S.C. 165, 72 S.E.2d 66 (1952).
The pertinent Greenville County Zoning ordinance provides that the Board of Zoning Appeals may authorize such variance from the terms of the ordinance as will not be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cromwell v. Ward
...Kirkwood, 624 S.W.2d 58 (Mo.App.1981); Matter of Schrader, 660 P.2d 135 (Okl.1983); Ex Parte La Quinta Motor Inns, Inc. v. Greenville County Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 279 S.C. 598, 310 S.E.2d 438 (App.1983); McClurkan v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 565 S.W.2d 495 (Tenn.1977); Steele v. Fluvanna C......
- Ex parte Dibble, 0024
-
Fairfield Ocean Ridge, Inc. v. Town of Edisto Beach, 1087
...denial of due process. Second, the court held the appropriate standard of review is that announced in Ex Parte La Quinta Motor Inns, Inc., 279 S.C. 598, 310 S.E.2d 438 (Ct.App.1983) (Board's findings upheld if based on sufficient evidence and not arbitrary or clearly erroneous). The court r......
-
Bishop v. Hightower, 0953
...Zoning Board's decision should not be interfered with "unless it is arbitrary or clearly erroneous." Ex parte LaQuinta Motor Inns, Inc., 279 S.C. 598, 310 S.E.2d 438, 439 (Ct.App.1983). In February, 1985, Metromont received a building permit to build a concrete batching facility in an area ......