Laserfiche WebLink
<br />() <br /> <br />/~ <br />( ) <br /> <br />December 25, 20081 Volume 21 No. 24 <br /> <br />the text of the ordinance to determine its plain meaning; and could also <br />determine the plain meaning from related provisions and the statutory <br />scheme as a whole. The court found that the plain language of S 21.4.5.3 <br />required a small-lot OSS petitioner like Griffin to satisfy each "and ev- <br />ery requirement of the Code (other than minimum lot size) to qualify <br />for an" ass permit. i'Requirements," the court found, meant something <br />demanded as necessary or essential to comply with the Code. And, since <br />the Code explicitly provided "more than one method of satisfying a par- <br />ticular provision," the court" could not say that "only the first method <br />that happened to be listed" was essential to satisfy the regulation on its <br />own." The Code articulated alternatives for certain requirements (e.g., <br />the building foundation/septic tank setback could be a 5-foot setback or <br />smaller if approved by a health officer), and therefore S 21.4.5.3's "all <br />requirements" language" included those alternatives. Accordingly, Grif- <br />fin's proposed system could meet "all requirements" of the Code as nec- <br />essary for an OSS permit if he met standards or alternatives provided in <br />the Code. " , <br />The court found that Griffin failed to comply with a setback require- <br />ment of the Code and failed to meet the Code-provided alternative means <br />of satisfying that requirement. Accordingly, the court held that Griffin <br />was not entitled to an OSS permit because his OSS proposal did not meet <br />"all requirements" of the Code. <br /> <br />See also: Ford Motor Co. v.City of Seattle, Executive Services Depart- <br />ment, 160 Wash. 2d 32, 156 P.3d 185 (2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. <br />1224,170 L. Ed. 2d 61 (U.S. 2008). <br /> <br />Right of Review-Town rezones property <br />leased to "cellular tower builder <br /> <br />Competing builder and owner of nonadjoining property <br />challenges rezone <br /> <br />Citation: ATC South, Inc. v. Charleston County, 2008 WL 4899041 <br />(S.c. 2008) <br /> <br />SOUTH CAROLINA (11/17/08)-SCANA Communications, Inc. <br />("SCr") and South Carolina Electric and Gas Company ("SCE & G") <br />sbug"ht to build a cell-phone tower on property (the "Property") in the <br />county. They applied to the county for a rezone of the Property from <br />Agricultural-Residential ("AGR") to Planned Development for utilities <br />("PD"). Cell-towers were not allowed in AGR zoning, but were permit- <br />'( ) ted in PD zoning. <br />"""-~ Following the county planning commission's recommendation, the <br />county Council approved the rezoning request. <br /> <br />@ 2008 Thomson ReuterslWestr <br />5 <br /> <br />6"1 <br />