Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/01/2005

Home

52 Page 2 -- October 2.5, 2005 Equal Protection-- Hotel development corporation claims illegal discrimination Necessary ~ermit denied out of aesthetic concerns Citation: Sunrise Corporation of Myrtle Beach 'v. The City of Myrtle Beach, 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 04-2!71 '(2005) The 4th U.S. iCircuit has jurisdiction over Maryland, North Carolina, 'South Carolina, V~r$inia, and West Virginia. SOUTH CAROLINA (08/26/05) ~ Sunrise Corporation of Myrtle Beach wanted to build a 14-story hotel on property it owned in the city of Myrtle Beach. Myrtle Beach's zoning laws required the Community Appearance Board to approve every new construction project. In making its decision, the board was to consider the preservation of the environment, relation of the Pi:oposed build- ing to the landscape, and other similar issues. Local residents opposed adding another new high rise to the city. Based in part on this opposition, the board denied Sunrise's proposal. Sunrise sued, and the court ruled in favor of the city. Sunrise appealed, arguing the board's denial was unconstitutional discrimi- nation against its planned high rise. DECISION:Affirmed. Sunrise failed to present evidence that it was 'the Victim of illegitimate dis- crimination. Sunrise. essentially argued that because its high-rise building was denied while other high rises were approved, a case for equal pro!ection e~sted. How- ever, to support this clah:n, SumSse had to show that the classification, that of a high rise, was the basis of Myrde Beach's decision, and that this fact prompted' Myrtle Beach to engage in intentional and purposeful discrimination. While Sunrise did present evidence there were other high rises in Myrtle Beach, it failed to present evidence that its project'was rejected because it was a high rise. The evidence in the record explained that the project was rejected because of Sunrise's failure to discourage monotonous, drab, or unsightly development; to conserve natural beauty; to give proper attention to exterior appearance; and to relate the building to the landscape. Even if Sunrise's project was sim/lady situated to other projects, it still would have needed to show purposeful discrimination. If disparate treatment alone was sufficient to support a constitutional remedy, then every time a local government treated an individual differently from another sim/lady situated individual, it would result in a federal lawsuit. At most, the evidence showed the public was opposed to the project for several reasons, some relevant to board review and some not. The evidence that the board r~sponded to public opposition did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation, because matters of zoning were inherently political, © 2005 Quinlan Publishing Group, Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617.) 542-0048.