Rushing v. City of Greenville

Decision Date05 September 1975
Docket NumberNo. 20092,20092
Citation217 S.E.2d 797,265 S.C. 285
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesB. Lewis BUSHING, Respondent, v. CITY OF GREENVILLE et al., Appellants. Thomas A. WOFFORD, Respondent, v. CITY OF GREENVILLE et al., Appellants. Mollie F. WOOD, Respondent, v. CITY OF GREENVILLE et al., Appellants.

Robert O. Conoley, Greenville, for appellants.

Theodore A. Snyder, Jr., Greenville, for respondents.

NESS, Justice:

These three zoning cases have been consolidated for appeal. The Trial Judge, concurring with the Master in Equity, declared as 'unreasonable' the City Council of Greenville's denial of respondents' application for rezoning. The City seeks reversal of the Trial Judge's order. The plaintiffs-respondents are the owners of a separate adjoining lots on the south side of Augusta Street, at the intersection of Church, in the City of Greenville. Their lots are all zoned in classification 'D' which allows multiple family residential uses. They have asked for a rezoning of their respective lots to classification 'D--1' which is a transitional zone classification. The 'D--1' zone permits the business uses allowed in the 'E' local commercial district. Such commercial uses, however, are hedged by a long array of safeguards that are designed to protect nearby noncommercial properties and to prevent traffic congestion.

The findings of fact of the Master and Trial Judge are fully supported by the record and we affirm them. To summarize their findings, the intersection of Augusta and Church Streets is the intersection of two arterial highways, U.S. Highway 25 on Augusta Street and U.S. Highway 29 and Interstate I--185 on Church Street. An average of Thirteen vehicles a minute pass the Augusta Road frontage of all three landowners and an additional Eleven vehicles a minute pass on the Church Street side of the Rushing property. Traffic flows day and night and vehicle lights constantly sweep the respondents' lots. Vibrations and noise from heavy trucks, motorcycles and other automotive traffic are every present.

The area is heavily developed for commercial uses. One corner of the Church-Augusta Streets intersection is now occupied by a Howard Johnson Motel, another corner by a gasoline filling station. Church Street from the intersection into downtown Greenville is lined by office buildings, a motel and shopping center. Augusta Street leading west from the intersection is business into downtown Greenville. Augusta Street in front of the respondents' lots and for an additional block is restricted to residential use, which creates a small island in an area otherwise zoned and used for intensive commercial purposes.

The increased traffic, noise and encroaching commercial development have all been sanctioned by the City by zoning changes. These conditions have...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Eagle Container v. County of Newberry, 4037.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • December 15, 2005
    ...our judgment into a review of their decision, but must leave that decision undisturbed." Id.; see also Rushing v. City of Greenville, 265 S.C. 285, 288, 217 S.E.2d 797, 799 (1975) ("The Court will not overturn the action of the City if the decision is fairly debatable because the City's act......
  • Ani Creation, Inc. v. City of Myrtle Beach Bd. of Zoning Appeals
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • April 19, 2023
    ... ... Willoughby , 306 S.C. 421, 422, 412 S.E.2d 424, 425 ... (1991) (per curiam); see also Rush v. City of ... Greenville , 246 S.C. 268, 276, 143 S.E.2d 527, 531 ... (1965) ("There is a strong presumption in favor of the ... validity of municipal zoning ... of power and it is not the prerogative of the Court to pass ... upon the wisdom of the decision." Rushing v. City of ... Greenville , 265 S.C. 285, 288, 217 S.E.2d 797, 799 ... (1975); see also Rush , 246 S.C. at 276, 143 S.E.2d ... at ... ...
  • Hampton v. Richland County
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • December 16, 1986
    ...and within its sound discretion in rezoning the subject property as C-1. Our Supreme Court stated in Rushing v. City of Greenville, 265 S.C. 285, 288, 217 S.E.2d 797, 799 (1975), that the action of a municipality regarding the rezoning of property will not be overturned by a court if the mu......
  • State v. Cabrera-Pena
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • November 8, 2004
  • 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