COASTAL OBSERVER

Three challenges to Georgetown County land use decisions were sent back to the Circuit Court this week in three separate opinions for three-judge panels of the state Court of Appeals.

The suits by neighbors and citizens groups, including Keep It Green, sought to overturn the rezoning of the former county technology park on Petigru Drive and the site plan approval for townhouse development in the Parkersville area.

The suits were all dismissed by Circuit Court judges on motions from Georgetown County.

The plaintiffs, represented by Keep It Green Advocacy, appealed, saying that the lower courts improperly considered the merits of the cases in deciding to dismiss them.

The Appeals Court agreed.

The tech park property was bought by the county Alliance for Economic Development with a loan from Santee Cooper. It was proposed for a development in conjunction with the technology firm Mercom. When that didn’t materialize, the alliance put the property on the market.

County Council changed the zoning to allow a high-density townhouse development.

The neighbors and Keep It Green filed suit to overturn the rezoning, saying the county had violated state law and its own ordinances.

The county and the alliance argued that the complaint failed to state a cause of action and that the plaintiffs failed to show a violation of constitutional rights.

The county argued that the courts weren’t in the position to make land use decisions. People who were unhappy with those decisions had recourse at the ballot box, it argued in court filings.

But in the opinion handed down a day after a candidate backed by Keep It Green won the GOP nomination for a seat on County Council, the Appeals Court said the lower court was premature in dismissing the suit.

The claims of the neighbors and Keep It Green contained questions of fact that needed to be determined, the Appeals Court said.

The Planning Commission recommended against rezoning the Mercom tract. “While we agree the Planning Commission’s recommendation is not ‘controlling,’ the disregard of it raises factual questions regarding arbitrariness that were not answered at this stage of the proceeding,” the Appeals Court said.

The lower court also erred in determining at that stage of the proceeding that the tech park’s “planned development” zoning was valid or whether it should have reverted to the previous zoning when the park wasn’t developed.

“Further factual development of the record is needed to determine this issue and how if affects the validity of the 2022 Ordinances,” the Appeals Court said.

The other two cases involved site plan approval for townhouse developments that complied with the existing zoning. The neighbors and Keep It Green argued in challenging the county’s approvals for the projects that the zoning didn’t conform to the future land use maps in the county’s comprehensive plan, as required by state law.

They also challenged the process the county used to issue its approval.

The site plans were reviewed by the Planning Commission, which recommended denial. County Council approved the plans.

The plaintiffs argued that state law gives approval to the Planning Commission and the county ordinance that shifted that authority to the council was invalid.

The Appeals Court agreed.

State law “clearly states the decision of the Planning Commission is final,” the courts said.

The council’s approval was void.

The Appeals Court also agreed that the plaintiffs met the standard for a constitutional deprivation at that stage of the proceedings.

“Appellants maintain that they were not required to do so and if they were so required, they did so sufficiently to withstand a motion to dismiss. We agree,” the court said.

The Circuit Court decisions to dismiss the cases were reversed.

All three opinions issued on Wednesday were “unpublished,” meaning they have no precedential value outside the cases in which they were filed.