Petitioners own properties adjacent to a tract of land owned by the Walpoles, which was assigned an “Agricultural Preservation” zoning classification. In June 2003, the Walpoles applied to have their property rezoned to a PD district. Charleston County Council (the Council) adopted an ordinance rezoning the property from agricultural to a PD district in February 2004.
Petitioners brought a declaratory judgment action asserting that the ordinance rezoning the Walpoles’ property was invalid because the Council exceeded its authority and violated provisions of the South Carolina Local Government Comprehensive Planning Enabling Act of 1994 and the Charleston County Zoning and Land Development Regulations (ZLDR), in approving the change. The Enabling Act grants local governments the authority to create planning commissions to implement comprehensive plans governing development in their communities, and permits the governing body of a county to adopt zoning ordinances to help implement a comprehensive plan. The Council enacted the ZLDR in 2001 to implement its comprehensive plan.
The circuit court found the ordinance rezoning the Walpoles’ property invalid concluding that the Council exceeded its authority and violated the provisions of both the Enabling Act and the ZLDR. The court said that the ordinance did not meet the essential standards for establishing a PD district as provided by the Enabling Act. The court also concluded that the Council did not intend for a property owner to be able to reduce the residential standards of property zoned as agricultural through a PD process and that the ZLDR do not allow the use of a PD to modify the restrictions of the agricultural district for residential development.
The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the Walpoles’ property was properly rezoned to a PD district based on “the deference provided local governing bodies and the flexibility created through the Enabling Act.” The court found “the circuit court exceeded the applicable scope of review because a reviewing court should practice judicial restraint and not supplant its judgment for the local governing authority’s judgment. The court also stated that the appellate court “must leave [the disputed] decision undisturbed if the propriety of that decision is even ‘fairly debatable.’” The court further found the Council’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious.
The Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, holding that the circuit court properly invalidated the ordinance rezoning the Walpoles’ property from agricultural to a PD district because the requirements for a PD district under the Enabling Act were not met. The only effect of the ordinance in this instance was to allow the Walpoles to reduce the lot sizes for the property, thus avoiding the restrictions mandated by agricultural zoning.
Sinkler v. County of Charleston, 2010 WL 915827 (S.C. 3/15/2010).
The opinion can be accessed here.
