Background
The Ten Mile Neighborhood Association challenged the Charleston County Planning Commission’s approval of preliminary subdivision applications for two properties in the historic Ten Mile community near Awendaw. The association argued that the proposed lots conflicted with the community’s traditional settlement pattern and with cultural-resource provisions in the county’s comprehensive plan and Zoning and Land Development Regulations. County staff and the Historic Preservation Commission had supplied recommendations, while residents submitted letters, petitions, and comments.
At the hearings, commissioners received maps of current zoning, future land use, and flood zones; street and aerial photographs; proposed plats; and relevant provisions of state law and local ordinances. They discussed varying lot sizes, historic home patterns, residents’ preference for larger lots, a proposed overlay district, and how the applications compared with existing zoning. The commission approved both applications. The circuit court consolidated the association’s appeals and affirmed under the deferential “any evidence” standard.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. South Carolina Code section 6-29-1150(B) requires a planning commission to maintain a public record of its actions on development plans and subdivision plats, including the grounds for approval or disapproval and any conditions. The governing local rules and comprehensive plan did not, however, require formal written findings of fact and conclusions of law. The question was whether the proceedings created a record sufficient for meaningful review and allowed a court to discern the grounds for approval.
The hearing materials and commissioners’ discussion met that requirement. The court recognized the association’s argument that merely receiving information is not necessarily the same as considering it, but declined to impose a judge-like written-opinion requirement on a planning body. Comprehensive plans contain multiple, sometimes competing elements—including cultural resources, economic development, land use, housing, population, and transportation—and the commission was entitled to balance them. The aerial photographs and plats also supplied some evidence supporting the commission’s view of the neighborhood’s lot pattern. A reviewing court may not reweigh that evidence or substitute its judgment for the commission’s.
Key Takeaways
- A South Carolina planning commission must create a record that reveals its grounds and permits meaningful review, but need not issue detailed judicial-style findings unless a statute or ordinance requires them.
- Meeting materials, staff presentations, maps, photographs, plats, public comments, and on-the-record deliberation can collectively satisfy the record requirement.
- Under the “any evidence” standard, a court does not decide whether it would interpret photographs or land-use patterns differently from the commission.
Why It Matters
For South Carolina land-use practitioners, the case places heavy importance on building the administrative record before the vote. Applicants and opponents should connect their evidence to the governing plan and ordinance during the hearing, because judicial review will focus on whether the record discloses a lawful basis—not whether the court prefers one side’s land-use judgment.
Local governments can also take a practical lesson from the ruling: formal findings may not be mandatory, but a clear staff presentation and substantive commissioner discussion make an approval more defensible. Opponents seeking reversal will need to identify an error of law, arbitrary action, abuse of discretion, or a true absence of supporting evidence. The opinion is unpublished and nonprecedential under Rule 268(d)(2), SCACR, but it provides useful guidance on assembling and challenging a planning record.