SC Appeals Court Holds Church’s Development Permit Expired Due to Lack of Substantial Development

This post was authored by Matthew Loeser, Esq.

Grays Hill Baptist Church applied for a development permit from Beaufort County. In 2007, the Beaufort County Zoning and Development Administration issued the Church a development permit, which indicated: “All permits expire two (2) years from the date of approval unless substantial improvement has occurred or final Subdivision plat has been recorded.” In 2006, the Beaufort County Council enacted ordinances for an “Airport Overlay District”, which created “accident potential zones” (APZ) and “noise zones” in areas surrounding Beaufort’s Marine Corps Air Station. In 2007, the Church applied for a construction permit to build its fellowship hall, but the claimed County required it to first obtain a development permit. Later that year, the County notified the Church that the Beaufort County Development Review Team had reviewed the Church’s application and determined it needed to seek a variance from the Zoning Board as the fellowship hall would increase the occupant load of the building and expand its area by more than fifteen percent, in violation of the AO District ordinance. The master-in-equity reversed the decisions of the Planning Commission and the Zoning Board, holding the County erred in requiring the Church to obtain a new development permit. The master found the 1997 permit encompassed the fellowship hall; the construction of the fellowship hall would not increase the occupant load; and the Planning Commission applied an incorrect expansion standard under the AO Ordinances.

On appeal, Beaufort County and the United States of America contended the master-in-equity erred in finding the Church’s 1997 development permit applied to the construction of a fellowship hall in 2007, since the permit had expired. The record reflected that the Church’s 1997 development permit expired two years from the approval date “unless substantial improvement has occurred.” Here, although the Church made improvements to the site, the court found these improvements were directed toward the construction of Phase I, the sanctuary and parking area, and no work had been done towards the completion of Phase II. Additionally, there was no evidence in the record that the Church sought to extend the 1997 development permit. Accordingly, the court held that the master-in-equity erred in finding the 1997 development permit authorized the Church to construct a fellowship hall ten years later.

Appellants next claimed the master erred in reversing the Planning Commission’s denial of the Church’s application for a new development permit because the evidence supports the Planning Commission’s finding that construction of the fellowship hall would significantly increase the occupancy load of the site. At the Planning Commission’s hearing on remand, Fire Marshal Tim Ogden testified, “The occupant load is defined in the fire code as the maximum number of people allowed in a building.” Ogden further testified that the current occupant load for the Church’s site was 329 for the sanctuary. The occupant load for the Church’s fellowship hall could range from 533 to 1,600. Thus, regardless of whether the fellowship hall would present only a fifteen percent increase of disturbed area at the site, its construction would at least double the occupant load. The court therefore, reversed the master-in-equity and reinstated the Planning Commission’s denial of the Church’s permit application.

As to the variance application, the court found there was evidence in the record to support the Zoning Board’s findings. In codifying the zoning restrictions for the AO District, the County Council stated  the purpose of the District and addressed the public safety concerns in areas surrounding MCAS-Beaufort. Furthermore, the County Council required that property owners within the District to be notified “to increase public awareness and to ensure the general safety and welfare of persons affected by adverse impacts common to military aircraft operations.” Due to the risks inherent to the AO District, the Ordinances restricted property uses and building expansions therein to limit the potential number of people at risk should an accident occur. Accordingly, the court reversed the orders of the master-in-equity and reinstated the decisions of the Beaufort County Planning Commission and Zoning Board.

Grays Hill Baptist Church v. Beaufort County, 2019 WL 2017523 (SC App. 5/8/2019)