Laserfiche WebLink
<br />November 1, 20071 Volume 11 No. 21 <br /> <br />1 <br />I <br />I <br />l <br /> <br />/-" <br />. ) opment of the property was the same as the land use contemplated <br />when Miller filed the original application. <br />Because a fact issue existed on whether the project remained the <br />same after Wal-Mart's withdrawal as anchor tenant, it would have <br />been improper for the lower court to grant the city's request to dis- <br />miss the case. Accordingly, the trial court's order was affirmed. <br /> <br />See also: City of San Antonio v. En Seguido, Ltd., 227 S. W.3d 237 <br />(Tex. App. San Antonio 2007). <br /> <br />Density-Zoning change in preservation area more <br />than tripl.es density allowance <br /> <br />County argues challenged zoning change within its authority <br /> <br />Citation: Mikell v. County of Charleston, 2007 WL 2938196 (S.c. <br />2007) <br /> <br />SOUTH CAROLINA (10/04/07)-Mikell owned 162 acres of land <br />known as Peter's Point Plantation in Charleston County. The land <br />was divided into six parcels and was governed by the county zon- <br />ing and land development regulations. <br />Under the regulations, five of the parcels were zoned agricultural <br />residential, which had a maximum density of one dwelling per acre. <br />One parcel was zoned agricultural preservation, which had a recom- <br />mended density of one dwelling per 10 acres. A higher density of one <br />dwelling unit per five acres was allowed under certain circumstances. <br />Without an application for the maximum density in the preservation <br />zone, the existing zoning allowed for the development of approxi- <br />mately 64 units. <br />Mikell filed an application requesting that the land in the pres- <br />ervation zone be rezoned as a planned development. The requested <br />zone change would reduce the overall number of units planned, but <br />it would increase the number of dwelling units in the preservation <br />area from 10 to 39-a density increase to one dwelling per every <br />2.73 acres. <br />The request was ultimately granted by the county, and it enact- <br />ed an ordinance reflecting the zone change. Subsequently, a group <br />of residents objected to the development. They filed a complaint in <br />court stating that the rezoning violated the regulations by increasing <br />the density ratio in the preservation area. <br />Both sides asked the court to find in their favor without a trial. <br />The court found that the board had exceeded its authority by grant- <br />ing the zone change, because it conflicted with the land development <br />11 <br /> <br />47 <br />