Billboard company should’ve had Beaufort County’s permission to repair sign, judge rules
Beaufort County has won a legal dispute with Adams Outdoor Advertising over repairs to a Beaufort-area billboard the county did not approve.
The county’s top administrator noticed the work when he was driving past one day in April.
Adams Outdoor Advertising and Bo Hodges, real estate manager for the company, were found guilty by Judge Nancy Sadler of two violations of Beaufort County Community Development Code, Beaufort County said.
In a July 23 decision, Sadler ruled that Adams failed to obtain proper approvals from the county and engaged in prohibited restoration of signs that have become structurally unsound.
The trial was July 14.
Brittany Ward, Beaufort County deputy attorney, said Adams violated Beaufort County ordinance by choosing to rely on permits it received from the S.C. Department of Transportation and failing to get the required Beaufort County approvals.
An Adams Outdoor Advertising representative in Beaufort was not immediately available for comment.
The two billboards at issue are along U.S. 21 near Stokes Brown Toyota in Beaufort.
The county alleged Adams Outdoor Advertising violated the Community Development Code by replacing rotten pilings without receiving authorization from the county.
Adams argued that it did not need the OK from the Beaufort County Code Enforcement Division because SCDOT already had signed off on the sign repair. Additionally, the company argued that the county failed to comply with its own ordinance provisions requiring a warning notice of the violation by mail or hand delivery.
Adams informed the county April 6 that SCDOT had OK’d the work.
On April 7, the county responded that it, too, would need to approve the repairs.
The correspondence then stopped.
On April 10, Beaufort County Administrator Eric Greenway happened to drive by the location, court records show. He noted what he referred to as “the complete rebuild” of the two signs and sent an email to Adams Outdoor Advertising warning that the work needed county approval.
On April 11, Greenway was informed that Adams was going forward with repairing its signs.
Adams’ Hodges testified that the rotten poles were not located in exactly the same spot as the original ones because there would have been cement footings in the ground, court records show.
Judge Sanders noted that Beaufort County code prohibits restoration of signs that have become structurally unsound. The code, she wrote, states that any structural maintenance to a sign is an abandonment of the sign and prohibits replacement. The code does allow for repairs to damage, the judge said, but only upon notifying the Code Enforcement Department.
The county failed to follow formal notice requirements, the judge wrote, “but those were harmless errors on its part.”
“It is clear that the Defendants had actual notice of the requirement that the county approve any work undertaken by them to the signs in question and that the Defendants chose to perform the work in spite of their failure to obtain the proper approvals from Beaufort County,” Sanders said.
Sentencing will be held at a later date, the county said.
