Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/02/1995

Home

Z.B. April 15, 1995- Page 7 part of their legislative function. The legislators and the building official were also immune from the lawsuit for the ac¢ons they took regarding the building permits they could not be liable for {onstitutional violations unless their conduct violated clearly estab- lished rights. At the time of th°se actions, Eldo?ad0 Drive did not have a clearly establishe~ right to the building permits. The 15uiiding official reasonably be- lieved thai the construction of booths resulted in a change of occupancy, which required n~bw plans. Further, it was never clearly established that the ordinance's restriction~ on multiple adult businesses was unconstitutional. Therefore, the building Official was entitled to enforce the ordinance against Eldorado Drive. Lindsqy v. Shalmy, 29 E3d 1382 (1994). Kuzin~ch v. County of Santa Clara, 689 E2d 1345 (1982). Mobile Home ,, Was Nonconforming Use Abandoned? Cuseq v. Horry County Planning Commission, 445 S.E.2d 644 (South Carolina) 1994 In 1982, Tharington began prepa~ing to dev.e'lop a 156-unit mobile home park in I~lorry County, S.C. In 1985,. the county planning commission gave Tharingt~n preliminary approval, and he submitted a final plat and performance bond. ~ In 19~fi7, the county adopted a zOning ordinance prohibiting mobile homes. However, before and after the ordinance was adopted, Blind, a county Plan- ning Department engineer, assured Ttlarington his project Would be allowed as a"grand~athered" use. . "' ~ ' ' .- Thartngton tried to market the mobile homes and completed the necessary water an~ sewer projects, but becauselof the economy,'sales lagged. He reacted by build~ng 17 single-family homes on part of the property... . - . In 1~92, Tharington applied for a Permit to put a mobile home on the prop- erty, an4 the county .denied .his request. The commission upheld the denial, finding ['harington abandoned his plah for a mobile home park by building the .single-f imily homes. Tharington appealed. The ~oard of Adjustment reversed the comm~ss~o,,n., ruhng he .was entitled to mobile home permits because Blind had granted grandfather" status and Tharing!on had not abandoned his initial plan to develop the prOperty for mo- bile home use. Neighboring landowne?s appealed, and the court affirmed. The neighbo?s appealed again. : DECISION: Affirmed, in favor of Tl~rington.. i.. Tha[ington'.s.mobfle home project had "grandfather status," and he never abando~ed-it, The park was in'progress when the ordinance barring mobile 'homes ~ecame 'effective. Blind ga;;,d Tharington repeated ~ssurances that'h'e had gr{ndfathered the project, and Tharington relied on those guarantees. Tharington never abandoned the mobile home project ~ he continuously mar- keted a~d prepared for lhat use. ' Bennett v. Sullivan s Island Board of Adjustment, 438 S.E.2d 273 (1993).