Court Opinion

ID: 9574663
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:06:53.83057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:47.608898
License: Public Domain

Oxner, Justice
(dissenting).
The Board of Adjustment, in the exercise of its discretion, granted a variance. The Referee, an outstanding member of the Orangeburg Bar, after taking considerable testimony *468and viewing the locale, concluded that the facts fully justified a variance. His report was confirmed by the Circuit Judge. There is no showing that the decision of the Board of Adjustment is “arbitrary or clearly erroneous.” Hodge v. Pollock, 223 S. C. 342, 75 S. E. (2d) 752, 754. On the contrary, I think the conclusion reached is eminently correct.
The following factual findings of the Referee are fully sustained by the evidence:
“I further find that the proposed restaurant site lies to the east of Concord Street along the water front, and that all of the appellants objecting to the variance reside and/or own property to the west of Concord Street.
“I further find that a considerable area lying between East Bay and Concord Streets, South of Broad Street, in the City of Charleston, is occupied by business and industrial establishments with the exception of certain residences and apartments located on Tradd Street or South Adgers Wharf Street, which street leads to the proposed restaurant site, but is not the only street giving access to said site.
“I further find that the State Ports Authority owns much valuable property along the water front east of Concord Street which has long been used for business and commercial purposes, is now being used for business and commercial purposes, and which has no real value for residential sites or purposes.
“I further find that the proposed restaurant site has a value for commercial or business purposes of approximately Eleven Thousand Five Hundred ($11,500.00) Dollars, and that it has no value as a residential site.
“I further find that the appellee Charleston Lobster House, Inc., proposes to erect on the site an attractive and expensive building.
“I further find that while admittedly the erection of a restaurant or other commercial enterprise in a strictly residential area is usually detrimental to residential property values, the erection by the appellee, Charleston Lobster *469House, Inc., of the proposed structure will greatly improve the general appearance of the neighborhood, many present structures being in a most dilapidated condition.
“I further find that the leased proposed restaurant site consists partially of filled in land, partially of a concrete dike, and partially of land lying below mean high water level.
“I further find that the property, known generally as Adgers Wharf, owned by the State Ports Authority, is not adaptable for use as a deep water terminal for ocean-going traffic.
“I further find that, in the exercise of its discretion, the State Ports Authority has, in utilizing and developing property under its control, leased for substantial revenue and now leases other portions of Adgers Wharf for business and commercial purposes.
“I further find that the proposed restaurant site has been used for commercial or non-conforming uses within one year prior to the application of the officers of the appellee Charleston Lobster House, Inc., for a permit to erect a restaurant thereon.
“I further find that the proposed restaurant site is peculiarly suitable for the particular purpose for which it has been leased and that it is unsuitable and could not appropriately or economically be used as a residential site.
“I further find that the leased lot adjoins other property belonging to the State Ports Authority and the existing commercial and business use of the adjoining property renders it reasonably impractical for the State Ports Authority to improve the leased lot in the absence of a variance from, or modification of, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston.
“I further find that while the officers of the appellee, Charleston Lobster House, Inc., have a pecuniary interest in this cause, they also have a civic interest; have been and are extremely active in increasing tourist trade in the *470Charleston area; and have spent considerable time in an effort to find a suitable location for the proposed restaurant to the end that it will be, when constructed, a tourist attraction and a substantial asset to the City of Charleston.
“I further find that the officers of the Charleston Lobster House, Inc., after considerable search and exploration, selected the proposed restaurant site as the only available, suitable site in the City of Charleston for the erection and operation of the type of restaurant which they propose.
“1 further find that the City of Charleston does not now have a water front, sea-food restaurant, considered a tourist attraction, such as is proposed by the appellee, Charleston Lobster House, Inc.
“I further find that a water front, sea-food restaurant constructed and operated in accordance with the proposal of the appellee, Charleston Lobster House, Inc., will constitute a much needed asset for the City of Charleston, which caters to the tourist trade, and will therefore be in the public interest and welfare.
“I further find that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston, in this case, will result in unnecessary hardship and exceptional practical difficulty to the lessor and the lessee.”
In the Referee’s conclusions of law, he stated:
“Forced abandonment of property, without compensation, works a hardship whether the owner be a public or a private entity. Some of the witnesses for appellants readily and frankly admitted that it was the hope and purpose of the appellants to eventually force the State Ports Authority to completely abandon, without any compensation whatsoever, all of its valuable holdings in this particular area, which could never be practically, economically or feasibly used or developed as a residential site or sites. The State Ports Authority, a governmental agency, created for certain purposes, can and will suffer in my opinion, a hardship if it be *471compelled to abandon, without compensation, assets of considerable value.”
It must be conceded, as pointed out in Hodge v. Pollock, supra, that the power to grant a variance given to a board of adjustment must be sparingly exercised and only under exceptional circumstances, having due regard to the main purpose of a zoning ordinance to preserve the property rights of others. But here the proof shows that the property in question suffers a singular disadvantage through the operation of the zoning regulation. Indeed, the undisputed facts are to the effect that it can never be used for residential purposes. The denial of a variance- in this case has the practical effect of confiscating the property of the State Ports Authority.
It is also true that the fact that the State Ports Authority acquired this property after it was zoned for residential purposes is a material consideration. Ordinarily one who purchases property after the enactment of a zoning regulation is not in a position to complain that a conforming use would work an “unnecessary hardship” upon him. 58 Am. Jur., Zoning, Section 209. But I do not think this factor is controlling where, as here, to require a conforming use would practicaly destroy the value of the property for which a variance is sought. If the State Ports Authority had attacked the validity of this zoning ordinance upon the ground that as applied to its property, the ordinance was confiscatory, the fact that it was in effect when the property was acquired would not constitute a valid defense. Likewise, such fact should not bar its right to a variance.
I would affirm the order under review.