Opinion ID: 1405755
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Review by the Court of Appeals.

Text: The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the Walpoles' property was properly rezoned to a PD based on the deference provided local governing bodies and the flexibility created through the Enabling Act. Sinkler v. County of Charleston, Op. No.2008-UP-297 (S.C. Ct.App. filed June 5, 2008), slip op. at 2. The Court of Appeals found the circuit court exceeded the applicable scope of review because a reviewing court should practice judicial restraint and not supplant its judgment for the local governing authority's judgment. Id. (citing Bob Jones Univ. v. City of Greenville, 243 S.C. 351, 133 S.E.2d 843 (1963)). In addition, citing Lenardis v. City of Greenville, 316 S.C. 471, 472, 450 S.E.2d 597, 598 (Ct.App.1994), the Court of Appeals stated the appellate court must leave [the disputed] decision undisturbed if the propriety of that decision is even `fairly debatable.' Id. As to the Enabling Act, the Court of Appeals cited the prefatory language in section 6-29-720(C), which states [t]he zoning ordinance may utilize the following or any other zoning and planning techniques for implementation of the goals specified above. Failure to specify a particular technique does not cause use of that technique to be viewed as beyond the power of the local government choosing to use it.  Id. at 3 (quoting S.C.Code Ann. § 6-29-720(C)) (alteration and emphasis in original). The court stated Sinkler [Petitioners] [had] argued the County Council did not avail itself of this curative language because County Council utilized one of the definitions, but that it need not explore Sinkler's argument as this court defers to the County Council's judgment regarding the plan. Id. In the ordinance, the County Council found that the plan met Article 3.5 of the ZLDR. . . . Id. The Court of Appeals also found County Council's decision was not arbitrary or capricious, citing Bear Enterprises v. County of Greenville, 319 S.C. 137, 459 S.E.2d 883 (Ct.App. 1995). Id. County Council reviewed the plan for the property multiple times and the county staff recommended rezoning the property. Accordingly, County Council's decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Id. at 3-4. As to the circuit court's finding that the ordinance conflicted with the provisions of the ZLDR, the Court of Appeals held there was no conflict and nothing to suggest that County Council could not change an ordinance that it created. Id. at 4. The Court of Appeals concluded that, since Petitioners had failed to show that the enacted ordinance conflicted with state law or the ZLDR, that County Council's decision was arbitrary and unreasonable, or that the rezoning violated Petitioners' constitutional rights, it would not substitute its judgment for that of County Council, and it held the circuit court erred in concluding County Council exceeded its lawfully delegated authority. Id. This Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.