Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/01/2010

Home

February 10, 2010 I Volume 4 1 No. 3 Zoning Bulletin CUR Since that section did not require the Board to consider conditions prior to approval of a CUP, the court found it implied that the adoption of conditions could be considered after approval. Accordingly, the court concluded that "the Board did not lose the ability to adopt additional conditions at the time" it voted that North- west's application complied with all requirements of the Ordinance. Rather, with that vote, the Board merely determined that Northwest had complied with certain criterion. Once the Board made that vote, "it still had a right" to either: (1) "deny the application" based on other crite- rion; or (2) "adopt conditions." See also: Overton v. Camden County, 1SS N.C. App. 100, 574 S.E.2d 150 (2002). Case Note: In its decision, the court also concluded that the Board had erred by "failing to make findings of fact in support of its deci- sion to adopt the challenged conditions." The court remanded the case to the superior court, ordering the court to further remand the case to the Board with instructions for it to reconsider Northwest's permit application and "to enter a new decision containing appro- priate findings ...." Zoning Regulation Interpretation —Regulations provide maximum density for zoning district Regulations also provide Planned Developments can provide for variations from density requirements Citation: Mikell v. County of Charleston, 2009 WL 4895114 (S.C.-2009) SOUTH CAROLINA (12/21/09)—This case involved the interpreta- tion of the requirements of a zoning ordinance and whether a county could "exercise discretion in approving a [Planned Development] with a higher density than base zoning districts would have allowed." The Background/Facts: Since 1715, the Mikell family owned land known as Peters Point Plantation ("Peters Point"). In 2003, certain members of the Mikell family and Peters Point Associates, LP (collec- tively, "PPA") filed an application with the county to rezone six tracts of that land (the "Property"). The remaining tracts of land on Peters Point were owned by distant family members, Jenkins Mikell and Pinkney Mikell (the "Mikells"). Of PPA's six tracts: four were zoned Agricultural Residential (AGR); and two were zoned Agricultural Preservation (AG-10). The county's Zoning and Land Development Regulations (the "Regulations") set the maximum density of .AGR districts at: one dwelling per acre. Under 6 © 2010 Thomson Reuters 54