Laserfiche WebLink
<br />March 15, 2007 I Volume 1 I No.6 <br /> <br />capriciously, or illegally. The record had to include evidence that <br />supported the board's decision and showed that the board had <br />followed certain procedures to ensure property owners' rights. <br />Here, the court found no evidence that the proper channels were <br />followed for variance requests; the case had to. go back before the <br />board for rehearing. <br /> <br />See also: Frisenda v. ZoningBd. of Appeals of Town of Is lip, 215 <br />A.D.2d 479, 626 N. Y.S.2d 263 (2d Dep't1995). <br /> <br />See also: Pecoraro v. Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 <br />N.Y.3d 608, 781 N.Y.S.2d 234,814 N.E.2d 404 (2004). <br /> <br />Signs-Company seeks to replace billboard destroyed <br />by tornado <br /> <br />City denies application for 'new: billboard <br /> <br />Citation: Clear Channel Outdoor v. City of Myrtle Beach, 2007 <br />WL 522230 (S.c. 2007) <br /> <br />SOUTH CAROLINA (02/20/07)-Clear Channel Outdoor <br />owned a billboard in the,city of Myrtle Beach. In July 2001, a <br />tornado destroyed the billboard. Clear Channel applied to the <br />city for a permit to replace the sign. After a hearing, the city <br />denied the request; it relied on a section of the zoning ordinance <br />that was enacted in 1998 that prohibited the construction of <br />new billboards. <br />Clear Channel appealed the decision to the board of zon- <br />ing appeals, arguing that the billboard should not be considered <br />"new" but a replacement for an existing, conforming sign. Clear <br />Channel claimed that-under the ordinance-it had the right to <br />"restore, reconstruct, alter or repair" the sign as long as it con- <br />formed with all zoning provisions then in effect. <br />The city, however, claimed that the sign was nonconforming <br />before it was destroyed, stating that its nonconformance was <br />discovered while the damaged sign was being removed. The city <br />claimed that the billboard was actually two signs placed closely <br />together, which violated the requirement that a billboard could <br />not be placed within 750 feet of another billboard. <br />The board affirmed the decision denying the construction of <br />a replacement billboard. Clear Channel appealed the decision to <br />court, arguing that the board had considered inapplicable sec- <br />9 <br /> <br />161 <br />