Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/04/2013

Home

February 25, 2013 1 Volume 7 1 Issue 4 Zoning Bulletin The Golf Club further contended that the rezoning violated its due pro- cess rights because the CRO zoning boundary-which was based on tax map parcels —was arbitrary and capricious, sweeping too broadly. The Golf Course also contended that the rezoning of the Golf Course Prop- erty amounted to an unconstitutional taking of the property. Finding there were no material issues of fact in dispute, and deciding the matter on the law alone, the circuit court issued summary judgment in favor of the Town. The Golf Club appealed. DECISION: Judgment of circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court of South Carolina first held that the rezoning of the Golf Course Property did not violate the Golf Club's equal protec- tion rights. The court explained that the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution provides: "nor [shall any State] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (U.S. Const. amend XIV, § 1.) Since the claim here did not implicate a suspect class or abridge a fundamental right, the court applied the "rational basis test." Under that rational basis test, the Court had to determine: (1) whether the rezoning treated the similarly situated golf courses differ- ently; and (2) if so, whether the Town had a rational basis for the disparate treatment; and (3) whether the disparate treatment bore a rational relationship to a legitimate government purpose. Here, the court found that there were significant differences between the two rezoning petitions —one from the Golf Club, which the Town denied, and the other from another golf course, Snee Farm, which the Town approved. The court found that the Town had a rational basis for granting Snee Farm's proposal and denying the Golf Club's proposal. Specifically, the court found that the two rezoning petitions were not "similarly situated." Snee Farm's proposal presented "a compact, con- tiguous, unified site design that caused little alteration to the areas of play of the golf course." The Golf Club's proposal contemplated "spat- tering new lots throughout the Golf Course Property that caused multiple alterations to the areas of play." Moreover, the court found that the Golf Club failed to produce any evidence that the denial of its rezoning peti- tion was motivated by discriminatory goals. The court next held that the rezoning of the Golf Course Property did not violate the Golf Club's substantive due process rights. The court explained that "[i]n order to prove a denial of substantive due process, [the Golf Club had to] show that [it] was arbitrarily and capriciously deprived of a cognizable property interest rooted in state law." The court found that the Golf Club failed to meet that burden; rather the court found that the CRO ordinance "substantially advance[d]" numerous le- gitimate Town purposes. The court found that the Town's decision to base the CRO zoning boundaries on tax map parcels was not unreasonable. "Indeed, the rezoning of the Golf Course Property tracts 10 © 2013 Thomson Reuters