Video Management , Inc. v. City of Charleston Board of Zoming Appeals

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR. THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court Video Management, Inc. d/b/a C&C Video, Appellant, v. City of Charleston Board of Zoning Appeals, and Lee Batchelder, in his official capacity as Zoning Administrator, Respondents. Appeal from Charleston County J.C. Nicholson, Jr., Circuit Court Judge Memorandum Opinion No. 2004-MO-053 Heard September 21, 2004 – Filed October 11, 2004 AFFIRMED Thomas R. Goldstein, of Belk, Cobb, Infinger & Goldstein, P.A., of Charleston; and H. Louis Sirkin, of Sirkin, Pinales, Mezibov & Schwartz, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant. Charlton DeSaussure, Jr., of Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, PA, of Charleston; and Timothy A. Domin, of Clawson & Staubes, LLC, of Charleston, for respondents. PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authority: Issues 1 and 2: Centaur, Inc. v. Richland County, 301 S.C. 374, 392 S.E.2d 165 (1990) (no standing where ordinance clearly applies); Issue 3: Townes Associates, Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 221 S.E.2d 773 (1976) (findings of trial judge will not be disturbed on appeal unless without evidence reasonably supporting them); Issue 4: Fraternal Order of Police v. South Carolina Dep’t of Revenue, 352 S.C. 420, 574 S.E.2d 717 (2002) (issue not preserved); Issue 5: Centaur, supra (amortization period reasonable); Issue 6: Fraternal Order of Police, supra (issue not preserved). TOAL, C.J., MOORE, WALLER, BURNETT and PLEICONES, JJ., concur.