Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/01/2012

Home

Zoning Bulletin January 25, 2012 1 Volume 6 I No. 2 persons who may reside together as a single housekeeping unit, violated the Due Process Clause of the South Carolina Constitution. The B ackground/Facts: Peggy McMaster ( "McMaster ") owned property (the "Property ") in the city of Columbia, South Carolina (the "City "). The Property constituted a "single dwelling unit" and was lo- cated within a residential zoning district in the immediate vicinity of the University of South Carolina. Pursuant to the City's Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance "), only one "family" could occupy a single dwelling unit. The Ordinance defined "family" as: "an individual; or two or more persons related by blood or marriage living together; or a group of in- dividuals, of not more than three persons, not related by blood or mar- riage but living together as a single housekeeping unit." Four unrelated individuals occupied McMaster's Property. The indi- viduals were undergraduate students at the University of South Caro- lina. They were "friends, shared meals and expenses, and operated as a single household." After receiving neighborhood complaints, the City's Zoning Admin- istrator conducted an investigation of McMaster's Property and deter- mined that McMaster was violating the Ordinance. McMaster was sent a notice of zoning violation and directed to reduce the occupancy of her Property to no more than three unrelated persons within 30 days. McMaster appealed the violation notice to the City's Board of Zoning Appeals (the "ZBA"). She argued that the Ordinance was not violated. In the alternative, she argued that the Ordinance was unconstitutional. She argued that the Ordinance's definition of "family," which limited to three the number of unrelated persons who could reside together as a single housekeeping unit, arbitrarily and capriciously deprived her of a cognizable property interest in violation of the Due Process Clause of the South Carolina Constitution. The ZBA affirmed the zoning violation. McMaster then appealed the ZBA's decision to the circuit court. The circuit court found the Ordinance's definition of family did not vio- late the Due Process Clause of the South Carolina Constitution. Specifically, the court found that McMaster failed to prove the limitation on occupancy was not reasonably related to any legitimate governmental interest. McMaster appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The Supreme Court of South Carolina (the "Court ") held that the Ordinance, which limited to three the number of unrelated persons who may reside together as a single housekeeping unit in a single dwelling unit, did not violate the Due Process Clause of the state Constitution. 2012 Thomson Reuters 9