Town of Hilton Head Island v. Fine Liquors, Ltd.
Decision Date | 26 September 1990 |
Docket Number | No. 23286,23286 |
Citation | 302 S.C. 550,397 S.E.2d 662 |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | The TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND, South Carolina, Respondent, v. FINE LIQUORS, LTD., and The State of S.C. Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission, Defendants, of which Fine Liquors, Ltd. is Appellant. . Heard |
James H. Moss and H. Fred Kuhn, Jr., of Moss, Dore, Kuhn and McIntyre, Beaufort, for appellant.
Frank L. Valenta, of ABC Com'n General Counsel, Columbia, and Curtis L. Coltrane, of Gray, Griffis, Wilson and Coltrane, Hilton Head Island, for respondent.
Appellant Fine Liquors appeals from the master-in-equity's decision upholding the validity of a Town of Hilton Head (Town) ordinance which prohibits the use of internally illuminated signs which are visible from any public right of way or beach. The issues involved are: whether the ordinance conflicts with statutory provisions; whether the ordinance was a reasonable exercise of the Town's police power; and whether the ordinance is constitutional under the equal protection clause. We affirm the order of the master-in-equity.
The Town seeks to enjoin Fine Liquors from using four internally lit "red dot" signs at its business in violation of a Town ordinance. The ordinance prohibits internally illuminated signs which are visible from any public right of way or beach. Code of the Town of Hilton Head, § 16-7-1015(25) (1983). Fine Liquors contends that the ordinance conflicts with two statutory provisions.
Fine Liquors first argues that the ordinance conflicts with S.C.Code Ann. § 61-5-190 (1990), which provides in part, that the "South Carolina Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission is the sole and exclusive authority empowered to regulate the operation of all retail locations authorized to sell beer, wine, or alcoholic beverages." Fine Liquors contends that this exclusive grant of authority to the ABC Commission to regulate the operation of liquor stores demonstrates that the legislature intended to pre-empt the field, thereby precluding municipalities from passing any ordinance affecting the operation of liquor stores. This contention is without merit.
We do not interpret the language of the statute as diminishing the power conferred upon local governments to regulate land use. The Town ordinance is a part of the Town of Hilton Head Island Land Management Ordinance and is thus clearly a land use ordinance. We agree with the other jurisdictions that have addressed this issue and have determined that in order to pre-empt an entire field, an act must make manifest a legislative intent that no other enactment may touch upon the subject in any way. See City of Virginia Beach v. Virginia Restaurant Assoc., Inc., 231 Va. 130, 341 S.E.2d 198 (1986) ( ); City of Norfolk v. Tiny House, Inc., 222 Va. 414, 281 S.E.2d 836 (1981) ( ). We hold that the ordinance is not rendered invalid by Section 61-5-190 (1990).
Fine Liquors also argues that the ordinance is in conflict with S.C.Code Ann. § 61-3-1000 (1990) which states that "[r]ed dots not exceeding thirty-six inches in diameter may be placed on each side of the building and on the rear and front of the building." The statute is completely silent on the issue of internal illumination of the red dots. As a general rule, "additional regulation to that of State law does not constitute a conflict therewith." Arnold v. City of Spartanburg, 201 S.C. 523, 536, 23 S.E.2d 735, 740 (1943). Further, in order for there to be a conflict between a state statute and a municipal ordinance McAbee v. Southern Rwy, Co., 166 S.C. 166, 169-170, 164 S.E. 444, 445 (1932). See also Amvets Post 100 v. Richland County Council, 280 S.C. 317, 313 S.E.2d 293 (1984); Simmons v. City of Columbia, 280 S.C. 163, 311 S.E.2d 732 (1984). Here, the statute and the ordinance are not inconsistent; the statute is silent on the issue of illumination. We find no conflict between these provisions.
Fine Liquors next argues that the Town's ordinance is invalid as it is an improper exercise of the Town's police power. We disagree. Municipalities have a broad grant of power to enact ordinances "respecting any subject as shall appear to them necessary and proper for the security, general welfare and convenience of such municipalities." S.C.Code Ann. § 5-7-30 (1976). The stated purpose of the ordinance is to promote safety and aesthetics and to enhance and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Planned Parenthood S. Atl. v. State
... ... ten-thousand dollar fine and face imprisonment of up to two ... as it is here. See Town of Hilton Head Island v. Fine ... Liquors, Ltd. , 302 S.C. 550, 554, 397 S.E.2d 662, 664 ... ...
-
Planned Parenthood S. Atl. v. State
...applicable in cases where the constitutional standard is "unreasonableness," as it is here. See Town of Hilton Head Island v. Fine Liquors, Ltd. , 302 S.C. 550, 554, 397 S.E.2d 662, 664 (1990) (stating the "exercise of police power is subject to judicial correction ... if the action is arbi......
-
Martin v. Condon
...not inconsistent with any State law do not "set aside" any criminal laws enacted by the State. See Town of Hilton Head Island v. Fine Liquors, Ltd., 302 S.C. 550, 397 S.E.2d 662 (1990) (in order to preempt an entire field, an act must make manifest a legislative intent that no other enactme......
-
Hospitality Ass'n of South Carolina, Inc. v. County of Charleston
...ordinance may not be inconsistent with the Constitution and general law of this State. Id.; see also Town of Hilton Head Island v. Fine Liquors, Ltd., 302 S.C. 550, 397 S.E.2d 662 (1990) (recognizing the broad grant of power in § Although § 5-7-30 lists various specific powers possessed by ......
-
A. Nuisance
...or shown). Zoning may also be relevant where aesthetic concerns are at issue. Cf., e.g., Town of Hilton Head Island v. Fine Liquors, Ltd., 302 S.C. 550, 397 S.E.2d 662 (1990) (ordinance designed to protect "unique aesthetics" valid exercise of police power). [48] See, e.g., Funderburk v. S.......
-
Chapter II Public Construction Projects - State and Local
...at 119 (citing City of North Charleston v. Harper, 306 S.C. 153, 410 S.E.2d 569 (1991)).[389] Town of Hilton Head v. Fine Liquors, LTD., 302 S.C. 550, 553, 397 S.E.2d 662, 664 (1990) (citing McAbee v. Southern Rwy, Co., 166 S.C. 166, 169-170, 164 S.E. 444, 445 (1932); Amvets Post 100 v. Ric......
-
B. Local Procurement
...at 119 (citing City of North Charleston v. Harper, 306 S.C. 153, 410 S.E.2d 569 (1991)).[406] Town of Hilton Head v. Fine Liquors, LTD., 302 S.C. 550, 553, 397 S.E.2d 662, 664 (1990) (citing McAbee v. Southern Rwy, Co., 166 S.C. 166, 169-170, 164 S.E. 444, 445 (1932); Amvets Post 100 v. Ric......