Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />tions of the ordinance. After a series of appeals, ultimately, the <br />decision of the board was affirmed. The court found that Clear <br />Channel did not have a vested right in the reconstruction of the <br />billboard. <br />Clear Channel appealed again, arguing that its procedural due <br />process rights were violated. <br /> <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br /> <br />Clear Channel based its due process argument on the fact that <br />it did not have notice of the issues decided by the city. In the city's <br />initial denial, it cited the section of the ordinance prohibiting new <br />signs only, but, later, other factors were considered-for example, <br />the nonconforming status of the sign. . <br />The court found, however, that the city had not violated Clear <br />Channel's due process rights. Due process required: adequate no- <br />tice; adequate opportunity for a hearing; the right to introduce <br />evidence; and the right to cross-examine witnesses. Despite Clear <br />Channel's argument that it did not know of the nonconforming <br />status issue, there was evidence in the record establishing that it <br />was given notice of the issue prior to the hearing. <br />Clear Channel also a.rgued that the city could not change its <br />initial determination that the original sign was a conforming use. <br />It claimed that the city had inspected the sign and foul'ld it to be <br />conforming, and had never notified it that it was nonconform- <br />ing until after it was destroyed. Clear Channel claimed that, had <br />the city ever indicated that the sign was nonconforming, it would <br />have brought the sign into conformity before it was destroyed, <br />thus preserving its right to restore the damaged sign. <br />The court was not convinced by this argument. Not only was <br />it Clear Channel's responsibility to know the law regarding signs, <br />Clear Channel had "ample means" of knowing the sign was non- <br />conforming. Even if the billboard was. a legal, nonconforming <br />use, the city had a provision that allowed the termination of a <br />nonconforming sign should it be destroyed or damaged severely. <br />The decision in favor of the town was affirmed. <br /> <br />See also: In re VOTa, 354 S.c. 590, 582 S.E.2d 413 (2003). <br /> <br />See also: Labruce v. City of North Charleston, 268 S.c. 465, 234 <br />S.E.2d 866 (1977). <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />162 <br />