Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/01/2000

Home

Page 2 -- January 10, 2000 Zoning Violation-- Landowner wants to park 18-wheeler in residential zone SOUTH CAROLINA (12/6/99) -- Whaley parked his 18-wheel Mack truck overnight and on weekends at his home in the Crestwood subdivision of Dorchester. After several months had Passed, Whaley received a cease and desist letter from the county planning and zoning department that stated park- ing his commercial vehicle in the residential zone was a violation of local ordi- nances. He responded to the letter and was given a hearing. At the hearing before the county zohing board of appeals, Whaley testified he used the 18-wheeler to drive back and forth to work every day and per- formed maintenance on the vehicle at his home. The board afl'm-ned the cease and desist letter and Whaley was cited hgain. Whaley sued, and the circuit court afl.m-ned the decision. Whaley appealed, arguing the ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution because there was no rational basis between the legitimate purposes of the ordinanc~ and the classification produced by the ordinance. Specifically, Whaley argued that parked commercial vehicles should not be treated differently from commercial vehicles that drive through a resi- dential area. He also claimed th~ qoun, ty selectively enforced the ordinance against drivers of IS-wheelers and the Ordinance resulted in a taking. Finally, he argued that parking his 18-wheeler was a nonconforming or accessory use. DECISION: Affirmed. The zoning ordinance did not violate the Equal'Protection Clause, there was no evidence of selective enforcement, the ordinance did not result in a taking, and parking the 18-wheeler was not a nonconforming or accessory use. The Equal Protection Clause provides that "No state shall.., deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal;protection of the laws." Equal Protec- tion was satisfied if 1) the classificati°ri bore a reasonable relation to the legis- lative purpose sought to be effected, 2)sthe members of the class were treated alike under similar circumstances and conditions, and 3) the classification rested on some reasonable basis. - .' ....:! - · - .. Prohibiting the long-term parking ;~of commercial vehicles in residential neighborhoods was reasonably related !o protecting property values and main- mining the aesthetic appearance of residential areas. Prohibiting commercial vehicles' from parking in streets m residential zones reduced traffic congestion. The ordinance bore a substantidl . relataonship to the promotion of public health, safety, convenience, prosperity, and the general welfare of persons who reside in single-family residential areas of thai: county. Also, the ordinance was not selectiv61y enforced. Although Whaley showed I 1 photographs of other large cornmerdial vehicles in the immediate area that were not subject to any enforcement action at the hearing, he failed to establish any purposeful discrimination on the p~t of the planning and zoning officials. Thirdly, the Ordinance did not result in a taking. A zoning classification was not an unconstitutional, compens'able taking simply because it denied