Town of Hilton Head Island v. Fine Liquors, Ltd.

Decision Date26 September 1990
Docket NumberNo. 23286,23286
Citation302 S.C. 550,397 S.E.2d 662
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesThe 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.

HARWELL, Justice:

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) (provision of Alcoholic Beverage Control Act prohibiting ordinances regulating alcoholic beverages did not operate to prohibit city from imposing a tax on alcoholic beverages); City of Norfolk v. Tiny House, Inc., 222 Va. 414, 281 S.E.2d 836 (1981) (Alcoholic Beverage Control Act does not prevent local governments from regulating land use pursuant to zoning statutes). 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 "both must contain either express or implied conditions which are inconsistent or irreconcilable with each other. Mere differences in detail do not render them conflicting. If either is silent where the other speaks, there can be no conflict between them. Where no conflict exists, both laws stand." 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
30 cases
  • Planned Parenthood S. Atl. v. State
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • January 5, 2023
    ... ... 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
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • January 5, 2023
    ...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
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • November 14, 1995
    ...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
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • September 21, 1994
    ...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 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • A. Nuisance
    • United States
    • The South Carolina Law of Torts (SCBar) Chapter 3 Strict Liability
    • Invalid date
    ...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
    • United States
    • SC Construction Law Desk Book (SCBar)
    • Invalid date
    ...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
    • United States
    • SC Construction Law Desk Book (SCBar) (2013 Ed.) Chapter II Public Construction Projects State and Local
    • Invalid date
    ...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......

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