Question

6. Willard W. Smith had owned a salvage yard since 1980. In 1984, the county enacted a zoning ordinance requiring a permit for salvage yards. Because the operation of Smith’s yard predated the 1984 ordinance, he was not subjected to the permit requirement. A relevant regulation stated, “Any salvage yard which was licensed prior to June 12, 1988, may continue to be operated and maintained in accordance with the statutes and regulations in effect at the time the yard was initially licensed.” In 1992, Smith sold the yard to Poole. Poole continued to use the property as a salvage yard. The use and operation of the property did not change. After Poole failed to apply for a permit, the circuit court found that the previous lawful, nonconforming use of the property was terminated when Smith sold the land to Poole. Poole appealed the court’s decision. Do you think he was successful? Why or why not? [ Poole v. Berkeley County Planning Com’n, 488 S.E.2d 349 (1997).]

Answer 1

Solution:

I believe the case and the appeal to the case by Poole will be lost by Poole. This is because the regulations clearly state that the salvage yards licensed prior to the date of regulation will remain as they were. But since the salvage yard was purchased by Poole after the regulations were published Poole had to obtain a new license for the salvage yard in his own name. While doing so Poole will have to undergo a new license developing for the salvage yard he just purchased.

Hence, since Poole did not get the new license, the salvage yard was terminated from being lawful. Hence, it was necessary for Poole to get a renewed license for the salvage yard. HEnce, Poole will lose the appeal against the court.