Laserfiche WebLink
November 25, 2012 ( Volume 6 I Issue 22 <br />Zoning Bulletin <br />The City appealed. <br />DECISION: Judgment of circuit court reversed. <br />The Supreme Court of South Carolina held that the Ordinance was not <br />unlawful spot zoning. <br />In so holding, the court explained that "spot zoning" is the "process of <br />singling out a small parcel of land for use classification totally different <br />from that of the surrounding area, for the benefit of the owners of that prop- <br />erty and to the detriment of other owners." The court also noted that "[i]t is <br />not unlawful spot zoning if 'the proposed change is from one use to another <br />and there is already a considerable amount of property adjoining the prop- <br />erty to be reclassified falling within the proposed classification.' " <br />The court acknowledged that, here, the Ordinance, rezoning the Property, <br />singled out a small parcel of land and benefited the owner who sought it. <br />The court also acknowledged that the rezone was a change from the rear - <br />abutting property. However, the court also found that since the Ordinance <br />only changed the zoning for a portion of the Property (since it was previ- <br />ously split -zoned with the "front" portion having the 3X zoning), the rezone <br />was "not a change from the property that literally adjoin[ed] it." And, the <br />court emphasized that the three other properties on the block were zoned <br />3X, determining that there was " 'a considerable amount of property <br />adjoining.... falling within the proposed classification' and thus the change <br />to 3X for [the Property was] not `totally different from the surrounding <br />area.' " Accordingly, the court concluded that the rezone of the Property to <br />3X was not unlawful spot zoning. <br />See also: Bob Jones University, Inc. v. City of Greenville, 243 S.C. 351, <br />133 S.E.2d 843 (1963). <br />See also: Knowles v. City of Aiken, 305 S.C. 219, 407 S.E.2d 639 (1991). <br />Case Note: <br />For purposes of its opinion, the court accepted that a variance in height classifica- <br />tion (not just in use classification) may constitute unlawful spot zoning. <br />8 © 2012 Thomson Reuters <br />