Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/06/2012

Home

Zoning Bulletin November 25, 2012 I Volume 6 I Issue 22 of an insufficient panel at the time of the member's abstention. In proceeding with its application, the court said Green Falls "accepted the possibility of any combina- tion of voting outcomes". Spot oning—Through ordinance, city rezones parcel that was split - zoned so that entire parcel has same zoning Opponents challenge the ordinance, arguing it constitutes unlawful spot zoning Citation: Historic Charleston Foundation v. City of Charleston, 2012 WL 4903040 (S.C. 2012) SOUTH CAROLINA (10/17/12)—This case addressed the issue of whether the rezoning of one parcel of property, which benefited the parcel's owner, constituted unlawful spot zoning. The Background/Facts: Prior to 2006, much of the Upper King \ neighborhood, in the Marion Square area of the city of Charleston, South Carolina (the "City"), was zoned 3X—meaning the maximum height of a building on the property could be three times the distance from the faade of the building to the center of the right-of-way in front of it. In 2006, in an ef- fort to eliminate the "prehistoric" 3X zoning, the Charleston City Council (the "City Council") passed an ordinance rezoning the area. Under that rezoning, only four properties in the vicinity were left with at least part of the property zoned 3X. One of those properties was 404 King Street (the "Property"). The Property was split -zoned: Approximately 60% of the building was zoned 3X meaning its maximum height could be three times the distance from the faade of the building to the center of King Street. The interior of the building was zoned 55/30—meaning the height could not exceed 55 feet nor could it be less than 30 feet high. At some point, Library Associates purchased the Property with plans to build a large, full -service hotel on the lot. In 2007, the City initiated the rezoning of the Property so that the entire parcel could be zoned 3X. The City Council adopted an ordinance (the "Ordinance"), which applied only to the Property, rezoning the entire Property 3X. No other property in the City was rezoned under the Ordinance. Thereafter, the Historic Charleston Foundation and the Preservation So- ciety of Charleston (the "Opponents") brought a legal action challenging the Ordinance. The Opponents contended that the Ordinance constituted il- legal spot zoning. The circuit court's Master -in -Equity agreed. The Master found the Ordinance was unlawful spot zoning, and invalidated it. ©2012 Thomson Reuters 7