Anderson County v. Lakeside Lighthouse

THIS OPINION
HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN
ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Anderson
County, South Carolina, Respondent,

v.

Lakeside
Lighthouse, Inc., Donald A. Slater, Denise A. Slater, and R. Jack Lingefelt, Appellants.

Appeal From Anderson County

R. Lawton McIntosh, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2012-UP-118

Submitted February 1, 2012 – Filed
February 29, 2012

AFFIRMED

James S. Eakes and Charles W. Whiten, Jr.,
both of Anderson, for Appellants.

Charles F. Turner, Jr. and Sarah Day
Hurley, both of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Lakeside Lighthouse, Inc., Donald A. Slater, Denise A. Slater, and
R. Jack Lingefelt (collectively, Appellants) appeal the circuit court's grant
of partial summary judgment to Anderson County on the issue of the validity of
Anderson County Ordinance No. 2000-028.  Appellants argue (1) genuine issues of
material fact exist and (2) the circuit court erred in determining the
ordinance to be legally valid.  We affirm.[1]

1. The
circuit court did not err in determining that no genuine issues of material
fact exist.  Appellants have
failed to demonstrate any facts that are in dispute.  The parties agree on the
facts surrounding the adoption of the zoning ordinance.  Their disagreement
pertains to the ordinance's legality, not to the events leading to its
enactment.  Accordingly, the circuit court did not err in finding there to be
no factual dispute.  See Rule 56(c), SCRCP ("[Summary] judgment . . .
shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving
party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.").

2. Because Appellants
failed to challenge the validity of the zoning ordinance within sixty days of
its enactment and because Anderson County
substantially complied with its own procedures for ordinance adoption, we
affirm the circuit court's decision upholding the ordinance's legality.  See S.C. Code Ann. § 6-29-760(D) (2004) ("No
challenge to the adequacy of notice or challenge to the validity of a
regulation or map, or amendment to it, whether enacted before or after the
effective date of this section, may be made sixty days after the
decision of the governing body if there has been substantial compliance with
the notice requirements of this section or with established procedures of the
governing authority or the planning commission." (emphasis added)).

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER,
KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rule 215, SCACR.