Planning commission approval of subdivision reversed for lack of stated grounds and supporting evidence 

Listen to this article

The South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed a circuit court order affirming the Greenville County Planning Commission’s approval of a proposed 73-home subdivision known as The Stables.

The dispute arose from approval of a preliminary subdivision application for development on about 43 acres of rural land designated as “Suburban Edge,” an area intended for low-density residential use integrated with agricultural and natural landscapes. Neighboring landowners and a preservation group challenged the approval, arguing the project did not comply with Greenville County’s Land Development Regulations, including requirements governing infrastructure, compatibility with surrounding land use and environmental conditions.

The court first addressed whether the Planning Commission had to issue formal findings of fact or conclusions of law. Although no statute required a formal written order, the governing law still required a record showing the grounds for approval. Here, the record consisted of a short approval letter, meeting minutes and a transcript. The court held that material did not adequately reveal the basis for the decision. It did not show what facts the commission relied on, how those facts were applied to the land development regulations or why the commission approved the project by a 5-4 vote. Without identifiable grounds, the court said, the decision could not survive judicial review under the any-evidence standard.

The court also held the approval lacked evidentiary support under Article 3.1 of the land development regulations. The record did not meaningfully show that existing infrastructure and transportation systems could support the development, particularly given concerns about access by a dead-end road and the absence of a traffic impact study. The court also found insufficient support for the conclusion that the clustered development, at more than five homes per acre, was compatible with the surrounding rural and equestrian area. In addition, environmental concerns, including flooding risks, were not resolved by concrete evidence or finalized mitigation plans.

The 12 page opinion is Alliance to Preserve the Old White Horse Road Corridor LLC v. RP&L LLC, Lawyers Weekly No. 011-021-26.