Mikell v. County of Charleston
| Decision Date | 21 December 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 26749.,26749. |
| Citation | 687 S.E.2d 326,386 S.C. 153 |
| Parties | I. Jenkins MIKELL, Jr. and Pinkney V. Mikell, Petitioners, v. COUNTY OF CHARLESTON and Timothy E. Scott, A.D. Jordan, Curtis E. Bostic, Carolyn Condon, Ed Fava, Barrett Lawrimore, Francis J. Roberts, Leon E. Stavrinakis, and Charles T. Wallace in their capacity as Members of Charleston County Council, George Lee Mikell, Julia Mikell Flowers, Daisy Mikell Pedrick, Mary Mikell, John Mikell, and Peters Point Associates, LP, Defendants, of whom George Lee Mikell, Julia Mikell Flowers, Daisy Mikell Pedrick, Mary Mikell, John Mikell, and Peters Point Associates, LP are the, Respondents. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Capers G. Barr, III, of Barr, Unger & McIntosh, of Charleston, Frances I. Cantwell, and William B. Regan, both of Regan & Cantwell, of Charleston, for Petitioners.
Carolyn H. Blue, of Tecklenburg Law Firm, of Charleston, Morris A. Ellison, of Buist, Moore, Smythe & McGee, of Charleston, Perrin O. Dargan, III, of Hagood & Kerr, of Mount Pleasant, for Respondents.
James M. Brailsford, III, of Edisto Island, for Amicus Curiae.
We granted a writ of certiorari to review Mikell v. County of Charleston, 375 S.C. 552, 654 S.E.2d 92 (Ct.App.2007), in which the Court of Appeals held Charleston County Council (County) properly enacted a zoning ordinance for a Planned Development (PD) on Edisto Island. We reverse.
The property in question is a 160 acre tract of land on Edisto Island which is known as Peters Point Plantation, a former cotton plantation owned by the Mikell family since 1715. Peters Point forms a point, or peninsula, at the intersection of two tidal creeks: St. Pierre's Creek on the north, and Fishing Creek on the south.
Peters Point is intersected in the middle by Peters Point Road. Petitioners are I. Jenkins Mikell, Jr. and Pinkney V. Mikell, who own land on the north side of Peters Point Road; Respondents, distant family members of Petitioners, own six tracts of land, a total of 161 acres, on the north and south of Peters Point Road. The furthermost tract borders Fishing Creek.
In 1999, Charleston County enacted a Comprehensive Land Use Plan (Plan). The Plan describes that the The Plan calls for preservation of the rural community character. The preferred uses of agricultural areas include "farming and resource management, along with preservation of existing rural settlements, compatible low-density residential development, and small-scale neighborhood commercial development." Id. The recommended development densities within such Agricultural Areas of Charleston County are as follows:
—Agricultural Residential (AGR)—1 dwelling per acre to 1 dwelling per 5 acres.
—Agricultural Preservation (AG-10)—1 dwelling per 5 acres to 1 dwelling per 10 acres.
The Plan states "the designation of Agricultural Areas is also intended to direct residential development to existing settlement areas and to avoid the scattering of development into ... Agricultural Preservation Areas."
In 2001, County enacted Zoning and Land Development Regulations (ZLDR) in order to implement the Plan. The ZLDR incorporate the Agricultural Areas of the Plan, and reiterate that an AG-10 Agricultural Preservation District is subject to a maximum density of 1 dwelling per 10 acres. ZLDR § 4.5. However, an AG-10 district may be increased to a "highest allowed density" of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres, if a request is processed through the Planned Development process of § 3.5 of the ZLDR. The ZLDR sets the maximum density for AGR districts at 1 dwelling per acre, in accordance with the Plan.
Under the Plan and the ZLDR, of the six tracts of land owned by Respondents, four of the tracts were zoned AGR, and the remaining two tracts were zoned AG-10, such that the total parcel of 161 acres was subject to maximum densities as follows:
—106.64 Acres (2 tracts)—Zoned AG-10-1 unit per 10 acres = total 10 units1
—55 Acres (4 tracts)—Zoned AGR-1 unit per acre = 54 total units.
Accordingly, as initially zoned, the tracts were subject to a total maximum of 64 units.
In 2003, Respondents filed an application with County to rezone their Peters Point property to a Planned Development (PD) District. The stated purpose of the application was to allow family members to construct homes for themselves and their children at Peter's Point Plantation; they do not intend to permit commercial or multi-family development. On May 4, 2004, County Council enacted Ordinance # 1300 rezoning the parcels from AGR and AG-10 to a PD-103 District. The Planned Development submitted by Respondents (and approved by Ordinance # 1300) had the effect of reducing the total number of units on the entire tract from a maximum of 64, to a total maximum of 55 units. However, the Ordinance also had the effect of increasing the overall density to 1 dwelling unit per 3.8 acres. As to the 106 acre tract of land which was zoned AG-10, the PD had the effect of increasing to a maximum density of 1 unit per 2.4 acres.
Petitioners instituted this declaratory judgment action, contending the ordinance conflicted with County's Comprehensive Plan and the ZLDR. Petitioners' motion for summary judgment was granted by the Master. The Master held Ordinance # 1300 conflicted with the clear, unambiguous requirements of § 4.5.3(B) of the ZLDR limiting the density in an AG-10 district to a maximum of one dwelling per five acres. The Master found § 4.5.3 was, at best, inconsistent with § 3.5.7 of the ZLDR, such that the more specific regulation, § 4.5.3, controlled.
The Court of Appeals reversed. Mikell v. County of Charleston, 375 S.C. 552, 654 S.E.2d 92 (Ct.App.2007). It held County Council's decision to allow the PD was at least fairly debatable, and was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. It found § 3.5.2 and § 3.5.7 of the ZLDR authorized County's exercise of discretion in approving a PD with a higher density than base zoning districts would have allowed. The Court of Appeals found no conflict existed between §§ 3.5.2, 3.5.7 and § 4.5.3(B). We reverse.
Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the Master's grant of summary judgment to Petitioners and reinstating Ordinance # 1300?
Although summary judgment issues are generally reviewed under a fact-based inquiry, issues involving the construction of an ordinance are reviewed as a matter of law under a broader standard of review than is applied in reviewing issues of fact. Eagle Container LLC v. County of Newberry, 379 S.C. 564, 666 S.E.2d 892 (2008). Although great deference is accorded the decisions of those charged with interpreting and applying local zoning ordinances, "a broader and more independent review is permitted when the issue concerns the construction of an ordinance." Id. at 568, 666 S.E.2d at 894 citing Charleston County Parks & Recreation Comm'n v. Somers, 319 S.C. 65, 67, 459 S.E.2d 841, 843 (1995). The determination of legislative intent is a matter of law. Id.2
County's Comprehensive Land Use Plan establishes four distinct areas within County, and sets forth the general types and intensities of development which should occur in each. The only areas pertinent to this case are those designated as Agricultural, for which there are two categories:
— Agricultural Residential (AGR)—1 dwelling per acre to 1 dwelling per 5 acres.
— Agricultural Preservation (AG-10)—1 dwelling per 5 acres to 1 dwelling per 10 acres.
The ZLDR passed by County to implement the Plan requires an AG-10 District to have a maximum density of 1 dwelling per 10 acres. ZLDR § 4.5.2. However, this density may be increased to a "highest allowed density" of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres, if a request is processed through the Planned Development process of § 3.5 of the ZLDR. ZLDR § 4.5.3.B.
Section 3.5.7 of the ZLDR states:
Unless expressly stated in this section or approved at the time of a Planned Development approval, all applicable standards of this Ordinance shall apply.... Planned Developments may provided for variations from other ordinances and the regulations of the other established zoning districts concerning use, setbacks, lot area, density, bulk and other requirements to accommodate flexibility in the arrangement of uses for the general purpose of promoting and protecting the public health, safety, and general welfare.
(Emphasis supplied).3
The Court of Appeals held that inasmuch as § 3.5.7 permits the Commission to approve a PD with a higher density than other established zoning districts, the action of the Commission in approving respondents' application was at least "fairly debatable." The Court of Appeals also held that, because County has the legislative power to amend its general zoning ordinance and rezone small areas, it acted within its authority. This was error.
The primary rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. Mid-State Auto Auction of Lexington, Inc. v. Altman, 324 S.C. 65, 69, 476 S.E.2d 690, 692 (1996). When interpreting an ordinance, the legislative intent must prevail if it can be reasonably discovered in the language used. Charleston County Parks & Recreation Comm'n v. Somers, 319 S.C. 65, 67, 459 S.E.2d 841, 843 (1995). Further, where two provisions deal with the same issue, one in a general and the other in a more specific and definite manner, the more specific prevails. Capco of Summerville v. J.H. Gayle Constr. Co., Inc., 368 S.C. 137, 628 S.E.2d 38 (2006). See also Wooten ex rel. Wooten v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 333 S.C. 464, 468, 511 S.E.2d 355, 357 (1999) (); Atlas Food Sys. & Servs., Inc. v. Crane Nat'l Vendors Div. of Unidynamics Corp., 319 S.C. 556, 558, 462 S.E.2d 858, 859 (1995) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boehm v. Town of Sullivan's Island Bd. of Zoning Appeals
...Sols., Inc. v. Hinde , 414 S.C. 1, 9, 776 S.E.2d 753, 757 (Ct. App. 2015) (alteration by court) (quoting Mikell v. Cty. of Charleston , 386 S.C. 153, 158, 687 S.E.2d 326, 329 (2009) ). "Although great deference is accorded the decisions of those charged with interpreting and applying local ......
-
Dewberry 334 Meeting St. LLC v. City of Charleston
... ... BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR ... Heard ... September 15, 2020 ... Appeal ... From Charleston County J. C. Nicholson, Jr., Circuit Court ... Judge ... Frances Isaac Cantwell and Daniel Simmons McQueeney, Jr., ... the other in a more specific and definite manner, the more ... specific prevails." Mikell v. County of ... Charleston, 386 S.C. 153, 160, 687 S.E.2d 326, 330 ... (2009) ... According ... to section 54-220 ... ...
-
Arkay, LLC v. City of Charleston
...as a matter of law under a broader standard of review than is applied in reviewing issues of fact.” Mikell v. Cty. of Charleston , 386 S.C. 153, 158, 687 S.E.2d 326, 329 (2009). “The determination of legislative intent is a matter of law.” Somers , 319 S.C. at 67, 459 S.E.2d at 843.LAW/ANAL......
-
Olds v. City of Goose Creek
...primary rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature." Mikell v. Cty. of Charleston , 386 S.C. 153, 160, 687 S.E.2d 326, 330 (2009). "When interpreting an ordinance, the legislative intent must prevail if it can be reasonably discovered in ......
-
Challenges to Local Government Zoning and Land Use Decisions in South Carolina
...[13] See § 15-53-30; Sinkler v. Cnty. of Charleston, 387 S.C. 67, 70, 690 S.E.2d 777, 778 (2010); Mikell v. Cnty. of Charleston, 386 S.C. 153, 157, 687 S.E.2d 326, 329 (2009). [14] S.C. Code Ann. § 6-29-760(D). [15] E.g., Dunes W. Golf Club, LLC v. Town of Mount Pleasant, 401 S.C. 280, 737 ......
-
A Delicate Balance: Planning, Zoning, and Politics
...to comply with the provisions of the Enabling Act that address planned developments. In a similar manner, Mikell v. County of Charleston, 386 S.C. 153, 687 S.E.2d 326 (2009), held that an increase in density from one unit per ten acres to one unit per five acres was contrary to the intent c......