Laserfiche WebLink
<br />",-_-.':':::~:;..:J;-,,~.::'.;"""";:~._~_. . ...:.......:...-..._--"-. ..-..:.:.---..:.----..;---...:--.::---.- "'.- ....'., <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin. <br /> <br />Zoning Ordinance Amendment-County () <br />amends zoning. ordin.ance by adding a single <br />word to a list of uses <br /> <br />. I <br /> <br />Applicant claims that be~ause ofthe amendment his use no <br />longer requires special exception <br /> <br />Citation: Eagle Container Co., LLC v. County of Newberry, 2008 WL <br />4004110 (S.c. 2008) . <br /> <br />soum CAROLINA (09/02/08)-InDecember 2002, the county <br />council amended the county zoning ordinance by adding a single worcl-:- <br />"landfill"-t() a list of uses that could be allowed in what was classified <br />as R-2 Rural District. Specifically, the announcement for the amendment <br />read: ~'Article.3, Section 301 is amended to add text 'landfill' to the uses <br />permitted in R-2 Rural District." <br />Eagle Container Co., LLC owned land in the county's R-2 Rural Dis~ <br />trict. On May 16, 2003, it applied for a special exception to construct <br />and operate a landfill on the property. Before that request was acted <br />upon, Eagle apparently learned of the amended ordinance. On June 2, <br />2003, Eagle applied for, and received, a permit to operate the proposed (-") <br />landfill. .Two days later, the county revoked the permit. In doing so, the <br />county advised Eagle that it had issued the permit in error. It also advised <br />Eagle tha,t under the county zoning ordinance, landfills were permitted <br />in R-2 districts as special exceptions. The county reinstated Eagle's May <br />2003 special exception application. <br />Eagle filed a lawsuit against the county. It asked the circuit court to <br />. declare that a landfill was a "permitted use" under the ordinance. It also <br />asked the court to order the permit be reinstated. <br />The circuit court issued judgment for :Eagle, ruling a landfill was a <br />"permitted use" within the meaning of the amendment ordinance. <br />The county appealed. <br />The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court's decision. <br /> <br />DECISION: Reversed. <br /> <br />On appeal, the state supreme court rejected Eagle's request. The court <br />concluded that the amendment to the ordinance to add the word "landfill" <br />to uses permitted in a iural district did not change the classification of land- <br />fills from a "special exception" to a "permitted use." Accordingly, the court <br />held that the landfill remained a "special exception" use in R-2 districts. <br /> <br />dIn rdeachin? ~atthconclusio~, ~e courtf .ehxplaineddthat its rdoleffwas l~t- \,.J <br />e to etermmmg e county s mtent 0 t e amen ment an e ectuatlng <br />that intent. The court said it had to lo~k at the words of the ordinance, '. <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />@ 2008 Thomson Reuters/West <br /> <br />72 <br />