Fairfield Ocean Ridge, Inc. v. Town of Edisto Beach, No. 1087

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: CURETON
• Citation: 294 S.C. 475,366 S.E.2d 15
• Parties: FAIRFIELD OCEAN RIDGE, INC., Respondent, v. TOWN OF EDISTO BEACH, Appellant. TOWN OF EDISTO BEACH, Appellant, v. FAIRFIELD OCEAN RIDGE, INC., Respondent. . Heard
• Docket Number: No. 1087
• Decision Date: 14 December 1987

Page 15

366 S.E.2d 15 294 S.C. 475 FAIRFIELD OCEAN RIDGE, INC., Respondent,
v.
TOWN OF EDISTO BEACH, Appellant.
TOWN OF EDISTO BEACH, Appellant,
v.
FAIRFIELD OCEAN RIDGE, INC., Respondent. No. 1087. Court of Appeals of South Carolina. Heard Dec. 14, 1987.
Decided Feb. 8, 1988.

Page 16

[294 S.C. 476] Marvin C. Jones, of Bogoslow & Jones, Walterboro and William B. Regan, of Regan & Williams, Charleston, for appellant.

Robinson, Craver, Wall & Hastie, Charleston, for respondent.

CURETON, Judge:

The Town of Edisto Beach appeals from the circuit court's reversal of a decision of its Zoning Board of Adjustment. The circuit court ruled Fairfield Ocean Ridge, Inc. was not using its property in a manner prohibited by the City's ordinance and, alternatively, its use constituted a pre-existing, non-conforming use which the ordinance permits to continue. The Town appeals. We reverse.

[294 S.C. 477] The Town of Edisto Beach is an island municipality located on the Atlantic Ocean at St. Helena Sound in Colleton County. Fairfield is the owner and developer of certain property located in the town. In connection with the development, Fairfield acquired three tracts of land. The largest of these tracts is zoned as a planned unit development (PUD) and is the principal location of the development. The other two parcels are not contiguous to the larger tract or each other. One of these parcels is a small parcel on the front beach at Edisto and is referred to as the "Cabana" property. This is the property involved in this appeal. There is erected on the Cabana property an irregular shaped structure approximately 37 feet wide by 27 feet deep which has a screened open side facing the ocean.

Page 17

Fairfield's predecessor in title prepared a Master Land Use Plan for the development which it named "Oristo." This plan was dated December 23, 1980. This plan depicts all three tracts of land and is hereinafter referred to as the Master Plan.

On June 11, 1981 Edisto adopted a zoning ordinance. The ordinance established an Official Zoning Map and declared the map to be part of the Ordinance. Section 305 provides in part:

No amendment to this Ordinance which involves matter portrayed on the Official Zoning Map shall become effective until after such change has been made on said map.

Section 306 provides:

[T]he Official Zoning Map ... shall be the final authority as to the current zoning status of land and water areas, buildings, and other structures in the Town.

Section 507 of the 1981 Ordinance deals with PUD districts. It indicates that a PUD exists where the abbreviation "PUD" is indicated on the Zoning Map. It also provides for amendments to the Ordinance for developing PUDs not indicated on the Zoning Map. Subsection (5)(d)(3) deals with development densities of a PUD and provides:

No individual parcel a [sic] designated in the December 23, 1980 Master Land Use Plan for Oristo shall be developed[294 S.C. 478] to a density exceeding seven units per acre. This density restriction also includes "The Point" (parcel X) and the beach cabana Properties.

The preceding subsection was amended on April 8, 1982 by changing the density from 7 to 10 units per acre. It was again amended on July 12, 1984 by deleting the last sentence and adding "in the PUD" to the preceeding sentence so that the Zoning Ordinance read as follows:

No individual parcel as designated in the December 23, 1980 Master Land Use Plan for Oristo shall be developed to a density exceeding ten (10) units per acre in the PUD.

In March 1986 a complaint was filed with the Building Inspector alleging Fairfield was using the Cabana Property for commercial activities ¹ in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. In April 1986, the Building Inspector issued his order to Fairfield to discontinue the activities. The decision states the Cabana Property is located in an R-1 district and the activities complained of increased the nonconforming use. The Board of Adjustments upheld the Building Inspector. Fairfield appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court judge held the Cabana Property was and still is zoned PUD under the terms of the Zoning Ordinance. He alternatively ruled that even if the property is now zoned R-1 the Zoning Board erred in finding it was zoned R-1 prior to July 12, 1984, when Section 507(5)(d)(3) of the Ordinance was amended to delete reference to the Cabana from the Ordinance. He further held that even if the Cabana was rezoned R-1 on July 12, 1984, Fairfield is entitled to continue its present use of the Cabana Property as a nonconforming use because the commercial activity was fully in place on July 12, 1984.

Edisto appeals the order of the trial court asserting the trial court: (1) applied the wrong standard in reviewing the Board's decision; (2) erred in finding the Cabana Property has ever been zoned PUD; (3) erred in finding insufficient [294 S.C. 479] evidence to sustain the Board's ruling that Fairfield did not establish a nonconforming use; and (4) erred in ruling on the admissibility of evidence and other miscellaneous matters.

The ordinance under consideration was enacted pursuant to Title 6 of The Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976. Section 6-7-780 provides that upon appeal of a zoning board's ruling to the circuit court "[t]he findings of fact by the board of appeals shall be final and conclusive on the hearing of such appeal. In determining the questions presented by the appeal the court shall determine only whether the decision of the board is correct as a matter of law." Edisto contends the board's findings of fact

Page 18

concerning the use of the property prior to June 1981 is binding on the circuit court if supported by any evidence.

The circuit court...