Dispute over billboards heads to appeals court

By Cindy Landrum  

FEBRUARY 10, 2011 2:31 p.m. (0)

A case that could make it more expensive for the city of Greenville to order the relocation or removal of billboards is heading to the state appellate court.

The South Carolina Court of Appeals will hear arguments Wednesday in a dispute over whether the city has to compensate billboard companies for signs it orders removed for violating zoning regulations.

A law passed by state lawmakers in 2006 prohibits local governments from amortizing nonconforming billboards without paying monetary compensation to the billboard owners.

Local governments are already required to compensate billboard companies for billboards on federally aided highways because of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965.

Morris Communications, which operates as Fairway Outdoor Advertising, sued the city in 2008, saying the new state law made Greenville’s ordinance allowing amortization of billboards within the city limits without compensation to the sign owner unlawful.

A circuit judge granted a partial summary judgment in favor of Morris Communications.

The city has appealed, arguing the city’s ordinance should be grandfathered in because it was passed nine months prior to the state law.

Greenville’s ordinance affects 23 billboards on minor streets within the city limits, according to court filings. The amortization period in the ordinance is six years.

According to court records, the state House passed a bill prohibiting amortization of nonconforming billboards on March 2, 2005.

Greenville then initiated an amendment to its zoning ordinance to provide the amortization of nonconforming billboards.

The ordinance was approved on first reading on April 4, but council delayed a second reading scheduled for April 11 so Fairway could prove its willingness to work with the city, court records show.

The state Senate amended the House bill to exempt local laws prior to April 14.

The bill was finally passed in May and the legislature overrode the governor’s veto.

Morris Communications argued the city’s ordinance was not approved by April 14. It also argued the city’s ordinance was not properly enacted and is facially defective.

Reid Sherard, the attorney representing Morris Communications, refused to comment on the case because it is still in litigation.