Title: Simmons v. City of Columbia

State: south-carolina

Issuer: South Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

280 S.C. 163 (1984) 311 S.E.2d 732 Kenneth B. SIMMONS, Sidney T. Gattis, Jr. and Kenneth B. Simmons, Jr., doing business as co-partners under the firm name and style of Kenneth B. Simmons Associates, Respondents, v. CITY OF COLUMBIA and John A. Ricketts, as City Engineer of the City of Columbia, Appellants. 22031 Supreme Court of South Carolina. January 18, 1984. Roy D. Bates and Joseph Wettlin, Columbia, for appellants. *164 George E. Lafaye, III, of McCants, Nelson, Green & Lafaye, Columbia, for respondents. Jan. 18, 1984. NESS, Justice: This is an appeal from an order invalidating Columbia City Code, Appendix B, § 1.2.2-f.5 (1979), which requires storm drainage plans submitted to the city engineer to include a certificate by a registered engineer or architect that the drainage design complies with city and county drainage standards. Appellants contend the trial judge erroneously concluded the city ordinance was in irreconcilable conflict with S.C. Code Ann. § 40-28-10 (1976 as amended). We agree and reverse. S.C. Code Ann. § 40-28-10(b) (1983 Cum. Supp.) provides: In construing a statute, we look to its language as a whole in light of its manifest purpose. City of Columbia v. Niagra Fire Insurance Company, 249 S.C. 388, 154 S.E. (2d) 674 (1967). A reading of § 40-28-10(b) indicates that the legislature intended the primary function of landscape architects to be the planning and design of the surrounding settings of land development projects. While we recognize that the statute allows landscape architects to design certain tangible objects, including drainage structures, incidental to the preparation of an aesthetically pleasing land development project, we do not believe it empowers them to certify the structural soundness of their proposed plans. We hold that the power to certify proposed drainage plans falls within the province of registered architects and engineers. A state enactment does not conflict with a municipal regulation unless "both contain either express or implied conditions which are inconsistent and irreconcilable with each other." Arnold, et al. v. City of Spartanburg, et al., 201 S.C. 523, 536, 23 S.E. (2d) 735, 740 (1943). The statute specifically prohibits landscape architects from engaging in activities which "are ordinarily included in the practice of engineering or architecture." Consequently, we hold the city ordinance does not conflict with S.C. Code Ann. § 40-28-10(b), as it does not prevent landscape architects from performing any act authorized by this statute. Reversed. LEWIS, C.J., and LITTLEJOHN, GREGORY and HARWELL, JJ., concur.