Municipal « South Carolina Lawyers Weekly

Home > Opinion Digest > Archive by category 'Municipal'

Municipal – Business License – Public Nuisance – Hotel – 911 Calls – Delegation of Authority

By S.C. Lawyers Weekly staff
Published: April 18,2012

Singh v. City of Greenville Between April 1, 2004 and June 16, 2006, Greenville police responded to 901 calls to Travel Inn. The second highest number of calls made to a Greenville hotel during the same period was 581, the third highest was 407, and police responded to fewer than 300 calls at each of the other hotels in the city.

Municipal – Public Utilities – Cell Tower – Discrimination Claim

By S.C. Lawyers Weekly staff
Published: March 8,2012

T-Mobile Northeast LLC v. Fairfax County Board of Supervisors In this appeal, we consider certain “prohibition” and “discrimination” challenges brought by a wireless telecommunications provider against a local governing body under a provision of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i), and conclude the Fairfax County, Va., board of supervisors did not violate the Act in denying a request filed by T-Mobile Northeast LLC to construct a wireless service facility on an existing transmission pole.

Municipal – Zoning – Variance – Exceptional & Extraordinary Condition – Steel Fabrication Business

By S.C. Lawyers Weekly staff
Published: January 26,2012

Black v. Lexington County Board of Zoning Appeals The Lexington County Zoning Board of Appeals did not abuse its discretion when it allowed a steel fabrication business - which pre-existed the zoning ordinance - to build a shed to house its sandblasting equipment.

Municipal – Zoning – Special Use Permit – Convenience Center – Additional Construction

By S.C. Lawyers Weekly staff
Published: November 10,2011

Newton v. Zoning Board of Appeals Beaufort County Code of Ordinances § 106-552 permitted the respondent-board to use information already in its possession to decide whether a community impact statement was necessary when the county sought a special use permit to perform additional construction at an existing convenience center (a collection point for residential solid waste). We modify and affirm the master-in-equity’s ruling in favor of the board.

Municipal – Zoning – Outdoor Advertising – Sign Amortization – Statute’s Effective Date

By S.C. Lawyers Weekly staff
Published: August 15,2011

Morris Communications Co. v. City of Greenville On May 9, 2005, the defendant-city purported to repeal its 1996 repeal of a 1993 sign amortization ordinance; nevertheless, the city is not able to get around a 2006 statute outlawing any ordinance which would allow a city to remove an outdoor sign without paying its owner just compensation. We affirm partial summary judgment for the plaintiff-billboard company.

Municipal – Annexation – Uncertainty – Contiguity — Broad Exclusions – Public Lands – Ownership

By S.C. Lawyers Weekly staff
Published: June 24,2011

Cabiness v. Town of James Island The respondent-town’s annexation petition includes language simply excluding all properties that are not contiguous under S.C. Code Ann. § 5-1-30(A)(4). Despite the inclusion of a map and a list of Tax Map Sequence numbers to illustrate what the town was trying to incorporate, the uncertainty surrounding the inclusion of large tracts of property within the town’s proposed limits renders the petition insufficient.

Municipal – Ordinance – Aesthetics – Rusty Railroad Bridge – Constitutional – Supremacy Clause – ICCTA

By S.C. Lawyers Weekly staff
Published: February 9,2011

City of Cayce v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. Bridges are expressly considered part of a railroad's operations under the definitions set out in the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA). Enforcement of . . .

Municipal – Constitutional – Ordinance – Disturbing Persons – Street Preacher – Overbroad

By S.C. Lawyers Weekly staff
Published: November 12,2010

City of Greenville v. Bane. Greenville Code § 24-32(3) makes it unlawful to "molest or disturb any person by the making of obscene remarks or such remarks and actions as would humiliate, insult, or scare any person. ..." Since the words that humiliate, insult or scare one person may not have the same effect on another person, people of common intelligence may be forced to guess at the provision's meaning and may differ as to its applicability. We find subsection (3) is unconstitutional because it is facially vague. The city failed to prove defendant violated any other subsection of § 24-32, so the defendant was entitled to a directed verdict as to the other subsections. We reverse defendant's conviction.

Municipal – Home Rule Act – County Council – Investigation Powers – Administrator's Actions

By S.C. Lawyers Weekly staff
Published: July 12,2010

Home Rule Act - County Council - Investigation Powers - Administrator's Actions

Municipal – Local Hauling Ordinance – Preemption

By S.C. Lawyers Weekly staff
Published: June 28,2010

Local Hauling Ordinance - Preemption