Waffle House sues city

By Charles Sowell  

JANUARY 20, 2010 5:25 p.m. (1)

Waffle House has sued the city of Greenville over restrictions placed on a restaurant planned for 11 E. Stone Ave.

Rivers Stilwell, attorney for the restaurant chain, filed the complaint on Dec. 16. City Attorney Ron McKinney filed an answer to the suit on Tuesday, demanding proof of Waffle House’s claims and denying the company’s complaints. The city asked that the suit be dismissed with prejudice.

Wednesday, City Council member Amy Ryberg-Doyle said that the C-2 zoning change was passed to “protect all businesses in that zoning classification.”

She also said she wished that Waffle House had gone through the process and gone to the board of zoning appeals.

“We haven’t denied them the 24-hour designation,” she said. “It would have been best if Waffle House had followed the process through before filing suit.”

Stilwell said he hadn’t had time to “fully digest the city’s answer to our suit” and he still feels the city’s standard of demanding a certificate of occupancy as the standard for establishing property rights is in violation of the state’s vested property rights law.

McKinney could not be reached for comment Wednesday afternoon.

Stilwell says in the complaint the city violated Waffle House’s rights by changing the zoning ordinance after the company went to considerable expense to develop the site and design a restaurant that meets city criteria.

The zoning change came after a firestorm of protest from Earle Street and North Main residents who claimed a 24-hour restaurant would hurt property values and increase crime in the area.

City council responded by amending the C-2 zoning law to restrict hours of operations for certain businesses (including restaurants), but allowing the 24-hour usage under a special exception from the city’s board of zoning appeals.

Stilwell said in his complaint any restrictions placed on Waffle House after the company had started the permitting process on the site was a violation of state and federal law.

He claimed forcing the company to go before the BZA in order to obtain a use of their property that was perfectly legal at the time of purchase is unfair.