## Facts

- Charleston County adopted a Comprehensive Plan (1999) designating Wadmalaw Island within an “Agricultural Area,” prioritizing farming, resource management, and preservation of rural character.
- Charleston County enacted Zoning and Land Development Regulations (ZLDR) (2001) implementing the plan; AG-15 (Agricultural Preservation) limited interior density to one dwelling per 15 acres and imposed minimum lot-size requirements.
- The Walpoles owned Anchorage Plantation, a roughly 750-acre tract on Wadmalaw Island historically used for tomato farming and zoned AG-15.
- County Council adopted an ordinance rezoning the tract from AG-15 to a Planned Development (PD) district.
- The PD ordinance did not increase the maximum dwelling units allowed under AG-15, but reduced minimum lot-size and related dimensional requirements.
- Homeowners challenged the ordinance as inconsistent with the South Carolina Local Government Comprehensive Planning Enabling Act of 1994 and with the County’s Comprehensive Plan and ZLDR.
- The circuit court invalidated the ordinance; the court of appeals reversed; the South Carolina Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether the PD rezoning ordinance complied with the Enabling Act’s planned development requirements, including S.C. Code Ann. §§ 6-29-720 and 6-29-740.
2. Whether the ordinance conflicted with Charleston County’s Comprehensive Plan and ZLDR implementing that plan.

## Decision

- The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and held the PD rezoning ordinance invalid.
- The Court concluded the ordinance failed to satisfy statutory PD requirements because it primarily reduced lot sizes while retaining the same overall residential density cap.
- The Court rejected the argument that the County could label the rezoning a PD while relying on general zoning authority; once the County chose the PD mechanism, it had to meet the PD statute’s substantive criteria.
- The result reinstated the circuit court’s invalidation of the ordinance, leaving the property in its prior AG-15 classification.

## Legal Principles

- Planned development districts authorized by the Enabling Act contemplate flexible, design-oriented development featuring characteristics such as mixed uses or varied housing types and densities and improved overall design and community character. See S.C. Code Ann. §§ 6-29-720, 6-29-740.
- An ordinance that merely changes dimensional standards (such as minimum lot size) without the defining planned-development characteristics does not qualify as a valid PD under the Enabling Act.
- When a local government elects to use the PD mechanism, it must comply with the specific statutory requirements governing PDs and may not avoid those requirements by recharacterizing the action as ordinary rezoning.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated Charleston County’s rezoning of a large agricultural tract to a planned development district because the ordinance functioned mainly as a lot-size reduction and did not satisfy the Enabling Act’s substantive criteria for planned developments, thereby leaving the tract zoned AG-15.


Sinkler v. Cnty. of Charleston, 387 S.C. 67, 690 S.E.2d 777 (S.C. 2010)