Citizens for Quality Rural Living, Inc. v. Greenville Cnty. Planning Comm'n

• Decision Date: 27 February 2019
• Docket Number: Appellate Case No. 2017-000170,Opinion No. 5629
• Citation: 426 S.C. 97,825 S.E.2d 721
• Parties: CITIZENS FOR QUALITY RURAL LIVING, INC., Appellant, v. GREENVILLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION and RMDC, Inc., Respondents.
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals

426 S.C. 97
825 S.E.2d 721

CITIZENS FOR QUALITY RURAL LIVING, INC., Appellant,
v.
GREENVILLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION and RMDC, Inc., Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2017-000170
Opinion No. 5629

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard October 10, 2018
Filed February 27, 2019
Rehearing Denied April 18, 2019

Barbara Faith Martzin, of B. Faith Martzin, PC, of Greenville, for Appellant.

William A. Coates, of Roe Cassidy Coates & Price, PA, of Greenville, for Respondent RMDC, Inc.

H. Dean Campbell, Jr. and Jeffrey D. Wile, both of Greenville, for Respondent Greenville County Planning Commission.

GEATHERS, J.:

426 S.C. 100

Appellant Citizens for Quality Rural Living, Inc. challenges the circuit court's order dismissing its declaratory judgment action and its appeal from a decision of Respondent Greenville County Planning Commission (Commission) approving the subdivision proposal of Respondent RMDC, Inc. (Developer). Appellant argues the circuit court erred by concluding that Appellant had no standing to appeal the Commission's decision or to file its declaratory judgment action. We reverse and remand to the circuit court for a determination on the merits of Appellant's issues.

FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In August 2016, Developer submitted to the Commission an application for preliminary approval of a proposal for a subdivision to be named "Copperleaf" near Woodside Road, South

426 S.C. 101

Shirley Road, and McKelvey Road in an unzoned area of Greenville County. This submission followed three previous unsuccessful submissions for the same subdivision.¹ According to the Commission, the August 2016 proposal called for a tract of 82.17 acres to be subdivided into 95 residential lots.

At the Commission's August 2016 meeting, several of Appellant's members, including those who own property and live in the immediate vicinity of the proposed subdivision, spoke in opposition to the proposal. They expressed concern over traffic hazards and other environmental problems that could result from the subdivision as well as the incompatibility of the subdivision with the surrounding rural community. Developer's engineer and the County's Planning Department staff also addressed the Commission at this meeting. By voice vote, the Commission accepted the recommendation of the Planning Department staff to approve Developer's proposal, and the county's Subdivision Administrator noted this approval in a letter dated August 29, 2016.

Appellant sought review of the Commission's decision in the circuit court, attaching to its Notice of Appeal a complaint entitled, "Appeal and Request for Declaratory Relief," with exhibits. In the complaint, Appellant set forth its grounds for appeal as well as a separate "Request for Declaratory Relief." Developer filed a motion to dismiss Appellant's complaint on the grounds that Appellant had no standing to appeal the Commission's decision and the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. In its supporting memorandum, Developer asserted that Section 6-29-1150 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2015) allowed only a property owner whose land is the subject of a commission decision to appeal the decision.²

426 S.C. 102

After conducting a motions hearing, the circuit court issued a Form 4 order stating, "Court grants [Developer's] Motion to Dismiss due to Appellant's lack of standing in

825 S.E.2d 724

this matter." The circuit court denied Appellant's motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCRCP, in a Form 4 order as well, giving no reason for the denial. This appeal followed.

ISSUES ON APPEAL³

1. Did Appellant have standing under section 6-29-1150 to appeal the Commission's decision to the circuit court?

2. Did Appellant have standing under the Declaratory Judgment Act, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 15-53-10 to -140 (2005), to seek the circuit court's declaration that the Commission had discretionary authority to reject a staff recommendation?

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Statutory Interpretation

"An issue regarding statutory interpretation is a question of law." Lightner v. Hampton Hall Club, Inc. , 419 S.C. 357, 363, 798 S.E.2d 555, 558 (2017) (quoting Univ. of S. California v. Moran , 365 S.C. 270, 274, 617 S.E.2d 135, 137 (Ct. App. 2005) ). As to questions of law, this court's standard of review is de novo. Fesmire v. Digh , 385 S.C. 296, 302, 683 S.E.2d 803, 807 (Ct. App. 2009).

Declaratory Judgment

"The decision to grant a declaratory judgment is a matter [that] rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of abuse."⁴

426 S.C. 103

Eargle v. Horry Cty. , 344 S.C. 449, 453, 545 S.E.2d 276, 279 (2001) (quoting Garris v. Governing Bd. of S.C. Reinsurance Facility , 319 S.C. 388, 390, 461 S.E.2d 819, 820 (1995) ). "An abuse of discretion occurs [when] the trial court is controlled by an error of law or [when] the [c]ourt's order is based on factual conclusions without evidentiary support." City of Columbia v. Pic-A-Flick Video, Inc. , 340 S.C. 278, 282, 531 S.E.2d 518, 521 (2000).

LAW/ANALYSIS

I. Appellate Standing

Appellant argues it had standing to appeal the Commission's decision to the circuit court under section 6-29-1150(D) because the statute's language does not limit the class of permissible appellants to only property owners. We agree.

"The right of appeal does not exist in every case[ ] and can only be claimed under some constitutional or statutory provision conferring such right." Turner v. Joseph Walker Sch. Dist. No. 9 , 215 S.C. 472, 476, 56 S.E.2d 243, 244 (1949) (quoting Whipper v. Talbird , 32 S.C. 1, 10 S.E. 578 (1890) ). "[N]o appeal is to be allowed from an inferior or special tribunal, except in cases where it is expressly granted by law." Sasser v. S.C. Democratic Party , 277 S.C. 67, 69, 282 S.E.2d 602, 603 (1981).

Here, Appellant does not argue that a constitutional provision confers on it a right of appeal from the Commission to the circuit court. Rather, Appellant asserts it has standing under section 6-29-1150. Developer and the Commission argue that section 6-29-1150 restricts potential appellants to only property owners. Section 6-29-1150 states in its entirety:

(A) The land development regulations adopted by the governing authority must include a specific procedure for the submission and approval or disapproval by the planning commission or designated staff.

825 S.E.2d 725

These procedures may include requirements for submission of sketch plans, preliminary

426 S.C. 104

plans, and final plans for review and approval or disapproval. Time limits, not to exceed sixty days, must be set forth for action on plans or plats, or both, submitted for approval or disapproval. Failure of the designated authority to act within sixty days of the receipt of development plans or subdivision plats with all documentation required by the land development regulations is considered to constitute approval, and the developer must be issued a letter of approval and authorization to proceed based on the plans or plats and supporting documentation presented. The sixty-day time limit may be extended by mutual agreement.

(B) A record of all actions on all land development plans and subdivision plats with the grounds for approval or disapproval and any conditions attached to the action must be maintained as a public record. In addition, the developer must be notified in writing of the actions taken.

(C) Staff action, if authorized,⁵ to approve or disapprove a land development plan may be appealed to the planning commission by any party in interest . The planning commission must act on the appeal within sixty days, and the action of the planning commission is final.

(D)(1) An appeal from the decision of the planning commission must be taken to the circuit court within thirty days after actual notice of the decision .

(2) A property owner whose land is the subject of a decision of the planning commission may appeal by filing a notice of appeal with the circuit court accompanied by a request for pre-litigation mediation in accordance with Section 6-29-1155.

A notice of appeal and request for pre-litigation mediation must be filed within thirty days after the decision of the board is mailed .

426 S.C. 105

(3) Any filing of an appeal from a particular planning commission decision pursuant to the provisions of this chapter must be given a single docket number, and the appellant must be assessed only one filing fee pursuant to Section 8-21-310(11)(a).

(4) When an appeal includes no issues triable of right by jury or when the parties consent, the appeal must be placed on the nonjury docket. A judge, upon request by any party, may in his discretion give the appeal precedence

...