Administrative – Subdivision Applications – Comprehensive Land Use Plan

Listen to this article

Georgetown County Council lacked authority to override the Planning Commission’s denial of two subdivision applications because county ordinances granting the council approval power conflicted with the state planning statute, which makes Planning Commission decisions final and appealable only to circuit court.

The South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed dismissal of a lawsuit challenging Georgetown County Council’s approval of two proposed townhome subdivisions in the Parkersville community.

The dispute arose after the Georgetown County Planning Commission denied the subdivision applications because they were inconsistent with the county’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan. County Council later reversed that decision and approved the projects, prompting neighboring landowners and community organizations to sue.

At the center of the case was whether Georgetown County Ordinance 607 lawfully allowed County Council to review and approve certain site plans after Planning Commission review. The plaintiffs argued the ordinance conflicted with the South Carolina Local Government Comprehensive Planning Enabling Act, which provides that planning commissions have final authority to approve or disapprove land development plans, with appeals taken directly to circuit court. The circuit court dismissed the complaint, finding County Council possessed broad authority over zoning matters and concluding the plaintiffs failed to allege a constitutional deprivation sufficient to challenge the approvals.

The Court of Appeals disagreed. Examining the text of the Enabling Act, the court found the statute plainly provides that a planning commission’s decision on a development plan is final and that any appeal must proceed to circuit court. By contrast, the county ordinance inserted an additional layer of review by County Council, effectively allowing the council to override the Planning Commission’s decision. The court concluded that this arrangement directly conflicted with state law because it transferred final decision-making authority from the Planning Commission to County Council. Where a local ordinance conflicts with a state statute, the statute controls. Accordingly, the court held that County Council lacked authority to approve the subdivision applications and that its actions were ultra vires and void.

The court also rejected the circuit court’s conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to allege a constitutional deprivation. It distinguished prior zoning cases requiring proof that a governmental action was arbitrary and unconstitutional, explaining that the present dispute involved a challenge to the legality of the approval process itself rather than a direct attack on the substance of a zoning ordinance. In any event, the complaint alleged that County Council’s actions were arbitrary and asserted numerous harms, including increased traffic, drainage problems, inadequate public-safety infrastructure and disproportionate impacts on a minority community. Those allegations were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

Because the complaint adequately stated claims and because the county ordinance conflicted with the Enabling Act’s allocation of authority to planning commissions, the Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal and allowed the challenge to proceed.

Reversed.

Green v. Georgetown County (Lawyers Weekly No. 012-031-26, 7 pp.) (Per Curiam) Appealed from Georgetown County Circuit Court (Benjamin H. Culbertson, J.) F. Patrick Hubbard, of Columbia, and Cynthia Ranck Person, of Pawleys Island, for Appellants. H. Thomas Morgan, Jr., of Smith Robinson Holler DuBose Morgan, LLC, of Camden; Shanon N. Peake and Sydney Jean Douglas, both of Smith Robinson Holler DuBose Morgan, LLC, of Columbia, all for Respondent Georgetown County, Matthew Evan Pecoy, of Pecoy Law Firm, LLC, of Charleston, for Respondents Laine CRE, LLC, and TriStar Land, LLC. South Carolina Court of Appeals Unpublished