Case Name: G. T. SCOTT, Individually, Trustee or Nominee, Respondent, v. Royce CARTER, Greenville County Planning Commission, Steve Day as Greenville County Zoning Administrator, and Ed Gregory as Greenville County Codes Administrator, Ropert T. Ashmore, E. A. Peddyeord, John Burgess and W. S. Farmer, Jr., Individually and as members of the Class representing all property owners in Buxton Subdivision, Garden Terrace Community, Crestwood Drive Community, and State Park Road Community, Manly Drive, Dreamland Way and Hillandale Circle, Defenadnts, of whom Robert T. Ashmore, E. A. Peddycord, John Burgess and W. S. Farmer, Jr., Individually and as members of the Class representing all property owners in Buxton Subdivision, Garden Terrace Community, Crestwood Drive Community, and State Park Road Community, Manly Drive, Dreamland Way and Hillandale Circle, are Appellants
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1979-08-15
Citations: 273 S.C. 509
Docket Number: 21029
Parties: G. T. SCOTT, Individually, Trustee or Nominee, Respondent, v. Royce CARTER, Greenville County Planning Commission, Steve Day as Greenville County Zoning Administrator, and Ed Gregory as Greenville County Codes Administrator, Ropert T. Ashmore, E. A. Peddyeord, John Burgess and W. S. Farmer, Jr., Individually and as members of the Class representing all property owners in Buxton Subdivision, Garden Terrace Community, Crestwood Drive Community, and State Park Road Community, Manly Drive, Dreamland Way and Hillandale Circle, Defenadnts, of whom Robert T. Ashmore, E. A. Peddycord, John Burgess and W. S. Farmer, Jr., Individually and as members of the Class representing all property owners in Buxton Subdivision, Garden Terrace Community, Crestwood Drive Community, and State Park Road Community, Manly Drive, Dreamland Way and Hillandale Circle, are Appellants.
Judges: Ness, J., dissents.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 273
Pages: 509–523

Head Matter:
21029
G. T. SCOTT, Individually, Trustee or Nominee, Respondent, v. Royce CARTER, Greenville County Planning Commission, Steve Day as Greenville County Zoning Administrator, and Ed Gregory as Greenville County Codes Administrator, Ropert T. Ashmore, E. A. Peddyeord, John Burgess and W. S. Farmer, Jr., Individually and as members of the Class representing all property owners in Buxton Subdivision, Garden Terrace Community, Crestwood Drive Community, and State Park Road Community, Manly Drive, Dreamland Way and Hillandale Circle, Defenadnts, of whom Robert T. Ashmore, E. A. Peddycord, John Burgess and W. S. Farmer, Jr., Individually and as members of the Class representing all property owners in Buxton Subdivision, Garden Terrace Community, Crestwood Drive Community, and State Park Road Community, Manly Drive, Dreamland Way and Hillandale Circle, are Appellants.
(257 S. E. (2d) 719)
Rex Carter, of Carter, Philpot, Johnson & Smith, Green-ville, for appellants.
Paul J. Foster, Jr., Greenville, for respondent.
August 15, 1979.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
The action out of which this appeal arises was tried before the Honorable Frank Eppes, Circuit Judge, resulting in his order directing the administrative authorities of Greenville County to issue to the petitioner a building permit. The ad ministrative authorities have not appealed and are apparently ready to comply. The appeal is prosecuted by property owners adjacent to, or near, the land on which the petitioner proposes to build an apartment complex.
The essence of the appeal, as taken from appellants' brief, is the contention that the judge erred (1) in holding that the petitioner had a right to the issuance of a building permit and zoning certificate prior to a complete review of his application by the appropriate county authorities, and (2) in holding that the authorities were without authority to defer action on the application. These questions are amply discussed and properly disposed of in the order of the lower court, which shall be printed as follows:
ORDER OF JUDGE EPPES
This is a zoning matter. It came on to be heard pursuant to verified Petition and Rule to Show Cause issued March 31, 1978, served and filed the same date. The Petitioner in substance alleges that the administrative authorities of Greenville County are, without just cause, delaying the issuance of a zoning certificate and building permit for an apartment project on Crestwood Drive, Greenville County, South Carolina. He then seeks relief in two forms: one an Order restraining the authorities from any further delay in issuance of the documents, and the other, an Order requiring the issuance of the documents. In due time, the County authorities responded by Answer denying any delay, and further alleging that three remaining items were needed prior to the issuance of the documents, they being: (1) A completed satisfactory traffic study; (2) A completed satisfactory drainage study; and (3) A right-of-way to cross over a sewer line of Western Carolina Regional Sewer Authority. Prior to the hearing a number of surrounding landowners, individually and as a class, moved to be made parties to the action and answered, alleging basically a detrimental result to their land, if the apartment project was allowed to go forward. i
The hearing was held at 10:00 A.M. on Monday, April 10, 1978. Present were the four (4) named parties in the original action together with their counsel; also present were two (2) members of the class of intervenors together with their counsel, and further, David Austin, a witness from First Citizens Bank and Trust Company. At the outset, the Petitioner, through counsel, made an opening statement to the Court and then stated he did not oppose the intervention. The intervention of additional parties to an action is largely in the discretion of the Court. Robinson v. South Carolina Highway Department, 241 S. C. 137, 127 S, E. (2d) 286 (1962). I find that it is proper to allow the intervention and so rule. I further find that the intervenors are individuals and classes of landowners and members of Subdivisions adjacent to and near the location of the proposed apartment project.
The County then produced the three named Defendants who testified and from their testimony, I find that the application for a permit had been properly made on March 21, 1978, by Petitioner; that immediately thereafter, the Zoning Administrator referred the material out to among others, the Planning Commission. I find that on or about March 24, 1978, there was a Memorandum issued by the Greenville County Administrator which caused the three (3) Defendants to stop any further action until the entire question of zoning and rezoning of the area had been heard. I find that the Zoning Administrator normally processes an application and issues a certificate in ten (10) days; that there now remain according to the County Defendants four (4) things before the documents can be issued: (1) a completed satisfactory traffic study; (2) a completed satisfactory drainage study; (3) a right-of-way over the Western Carolina Regional Sewer Authority sewer; and (4) to remove the impediment caused by the County Administrators Memorandum stopping action. I further find from their testimony that the property in question is zoned RM, and that that zoning classification includes an apartment project such as is presently in issue.
Thereafter, the Petitioner testified and also David Austin, Vice President of First Citizens Bank and Trust Company. I find from their testimony that First Citizens Bank and Trust Company has a valid contract to sell the property to G. T. Scott, Petitioner, and he, in turn, has a valid contract to purchase the property. I find that the property in question is thirteen (13) acres, more or less, and located on Crestwood Drive, and being noted on tax maps as 441-1-1, 441-1-1.1 and 445-1-3. The project is an apartment project known as Crestwood. I find that the efforts of G. T. Scott, as to this property, reach back to February, 1976, at which time he initially contracted for the property. I find that he has expended considerable moneys in furtherance of the project, to-wit: $68,000.00 to the architects for the designing phase; $2,500.00 for the down payment on the contract, and $9,000.00 for the funding processing fee for the project. The Plaintiff has expended a total of $79,500.00 as of the date of this hearing and has spent many months of his personal time pursuing the project as reflected herein. It appears, and I so find that the Plaintiff was relying upon the Zoning integrity as espoused by the County of Greenville, State of South Carolina, and to deny the Plaintiff a zoning certificate and/or building permit without objectionable grounds, which have not been shown as of the date of this hearing, would make a mockery of the zoning laws of the County of Greenville, State of South Carolina and denies this Plaintiff equal justice under the law.
The traffic survey has been completed and was even introduced into evidence. Some question was raised as to Crestwood Drive and ability to handle traffic and I find that the road is a 36-foot right-of-way,' two lane State maintained road, and that an adjacent two lane road is handling 7,000 cars per day. The highest estimate of traffic on Crestwood Drive after the project completion is 1900 cars per day.
Another question was raised as to the drainage plan being approved and I find that the plan has been in the possession of the County since March 21, 1978, and that even to the date of the hearing, there had been no objection raised as to the propriety of the drainage plan, and I find that it should have been reviewed within ten (10) days of the date of submission and that the County has had ample opportunity to review the plans prior to the hearing, and failing to object at the hearing, loses the right to.
As to the right-of-way over a sewer line, I find that the Petitioner has already contracted with and received letter approval from the sewer authority to go ahead with construction, and that any delay due to this would be without merit.
The Greenville County Zoning Ordinance adopted May 19, 1970, states in Paragraph 6:14, as follows:
Section 6:14 (formerly Section 6:15)
APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT
Plans for an apartment development shall be submitted to the Greenville County Planning Commission staff for approval. The plans should include the following data and any other reasonable information the Planning Commission staff may require in- its investigation of the plans.
(A) The location and size of the site;
(B) Density of land use proposed for various parts of the site;
(C) The location and size of any roads within the apartment complex;
(D) The location of all parking;
(E) The location of all street lights within the complex;
(F) The location, size and type of recreation provided;
(G) The height of each structure in the development;
(H) Plan showing complete drainage of the entire site;
In addition to the above information, the following will be required.
(A) A copy of covenants, grants, or easements or other restrictions proposed to be imposed upon the use of land, buildings, and structures including proposed easements or grants for public utilities.
(B) A schedule showing the proposed times for constructing the development.
I find no reference in the above section to a need for a traffic study or a need for a right-of-way over a sewer line. In any event, the Petitioner has duly submitted an application concerning the above, and I find that more than enough time has elapsed for the County to object to the issuance of the permit or certificate.
As to the stay issued by the County Administrator, I find that he is an arm of the Greenville County Council and its subcommittees. Section 9.9 of the same Zoning Ordinance reads, in part:
It is further 'the intent of this Ordinance that the duties of the County Council in connection with this Ordinance shall not include hearing and deciding questions of interpretation and enforcement that may arise. The procedure for deciding such questions shall be as stated in this section and this Ordinance. Under this Ordinance, the County Couficil shall have only the duty of considering and adopting or rejecting proposed amendments or the repeal of this Ordinance, as provided by law.
I find no legal basis for the intrusion by County Council into the zoning certificate and building permit process. Indeed the above excerpt specifically speaks to the contrary. I therefore find the directive of the Administrator to be null and of no effect, as it relates to Petitioner's application for the documents. The other portions of the Memorandum remain unaffected by this ruling.
Two (2) landowners of surrounding land testified and indicated their opposition was based in substance on a de valuation of their property if the project were to go forward. They also raised other issues, also irrelevant. I find that while the claims may be true, they have no bearing on the issuance of a building permit or zoning certificate. Thus, the Petitioner has duly applied for a zoning certificate and building permit, the County has had more' than ample time to process same, and yet there is no substantial objection even at the hearing date, other than a further need to study ma-trial which should 'have been studied and resolved long ago. I find that the delay is to the detriment of the Petitioner, without just cause and prompted largely, if not exclusively, by the unjustified intrusion of the Greenville County Council. Petitioner is therefore entitled to relief. It is, therefore,
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
(1) That the Greenville County Planning Commission, the Greenville County Zoning Administrator, and the Green-ville County Codes Administrator be and they are hereby required to cease any further delay in the issuance of the zoning certificate and building permit for the subject property and
(2) Further, they are hereby Ordered to immediately issue a zoning certificate and building permit for the subject property.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Additionally, the position is taken that the lower court erred in refusing to admit in evidence certain exhibits offered by counsel for the appellants. The inclusion of the exhibits would 'have made no difference in the result.
It is argued that the court erred in ordering that the answer of the administrative authorities (not submitted to the lower court) be included in the transcript. We are of the opinion that the lower court erred in directing that the answer, served after the order of the lower court was filed, be made a part of the record, and we have accordingly disregarded the same.
The lower court order, as printed herein, is made the directive of this court.
Affirmed.
Ness, J., dissents.
Gregory, J., dismisses.