Sinkler v. County of Charleston

Under Charleston County’s (defendant) comprehensive plan, Wadmalaw Island was designated as an agricultural area. The preferred uses on the island included farming, resource management, and preservation of the rural character. Development in agricultural areas was primarily intended to support the farming industry and secondarily intended to allow for compatible residential development. Theodora and John D. Walpole (defendants) owned a 750-acre tomato farm on the island. The Charleston County Zoning and Land Development Regulations (ZLDR) zoned the Walpoles’ land as AG-15 for agricultural preservation. AG-15 zoning had a maximum density of one dwelling unit per 15 acres and a minimum lot size of three acres. The AG-15 zoning restrictions limited the Walpoles’ maximum number of dwellings to 107. In 2003, the Walpoles applied to the Charleston County Council (the council) (defendant) to have their property rezoned to a planned-development district (PD). The council enacted a zoning ordinance rezoning the land to PD. Under the new ordinance, the minimum lot size was reduced to one acre, but the maximum number of dwellings was still 107, and the allowed uses were consistent with AG-15 uses. G. Dana Sinkler and the Anchorage Plantation Home Owners Association (plaintiffs) sought a declaratory judgment against the county, the council, and the Walpoles, alleging that the ordinance rezoning the Walpoles’ property was invalid because the council had exceeded its authority and violated provisions of the South Carolina Local Government Comprehensive Planning Enabling Act of 1994 (the Enabling Act) and the ZLDR. The trial court found that the only effect of the council’s new zoning ordinance was to reduce the minimum lot size on the Walpoles’ property and that the ordinance did not provide for different types and densities of housing or any new mixed-use development. The trial court invalidated the ordinance, concluding that PD zoning under the Enabling Act required housing of different types and densities and encouraged new mixed-use development. The court of appeals reversed, finding that the ordinance did not violate the Enabling Act, and deferred to the council’s determination that the PD requirements were satisfied. The state supreme court granted Sinkler’s petition for certiorari. Sinkler argued, among other things, that the court of appeals had incorrectly reversed the trial court’s invalidation of the ordinance based on the Enabling Act.