Court Opinion

ID: 9851681
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:17:40.601462+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:12.370004
License: Public Domain

Brailsford, Acting Associate Justice:
This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court which sustained a 1974 amendment to the 1961 zoning ordinance of the City of Laurens upon the grounds that the extension *219of the P-1 district did nqt constitute impermissible spot zoning, ivas not arbitrary or unreasonable, and that the presumption of adoption in the public interest had not been overcome. The opinio¡n of Justice Ness would reverse upon the ground that in adopting the amendment City Council not only acted unreasonably and arbitrary but with the intention of catering to a private group. Being convinced that these inferences are not fairly supported by the record, we disagree.
When the 1961 zoning ordinance was adopted by the City, this area was exclusively residential except for a hospital and two dqctors’ offices contiguous to it at the corner of Farley Avenue and Owings Street. The zoning ordinance conformed to these existing uses by placing the hospital and offices in Class P-1, professional, and the surrounding area in R-12, residential.
After the adoption of the ordinance and before 1973, the City’s offer of a site on which to construct a new hospital outside of the residential area was rejected. Instead, at a cqst of about one million dollars, the old hospital was rebuilt and, inferentially, greatly enlarged. This expenditure virtually committed the community to expansion of related medical facilities in the hospital area, for which inadequate provision had been made by the original zoning ordinance.
When Glenn Batten & Associates, a landuse consulting firm, was employed by the City to make a comprehensive study of its zoning structure, this need was immediately recognized. Batten estimated that eventually an additional ten acres would be required. He called the problem to the attention of the zoning administrator and members of the Planning and Zqning Commission orally and by two written reports. This was recognized by all concerned as a weighty problem calling for controversial decisions as to the direction or directions in which the P-1 district should be expanded and the extent of such expansion. However, a draft of a recommended revision qf the zoning ordinance submitted by Batten in June of 1973 failed to include an exten*220sion of the P-1 area. Since the proposal was merely a recommendation and there is no serious dispute that additional area is required, Batten’s reasons for this omission need not be stated. Suffice it to say that they are at least arguably credible.
The amendment does not create a new P-1 district in the residential area. It merely extends the existing district to meet a public need for expansion of the hospital area. The record indicates that the choice of direction and of the property to be included was made deliberately and in full compliance with the statute. We find no basis for concluding that a more appropriate choice was available, certainly none for overturning the strong presumption that the legislative power was exercised lawfully and in the public interest.
This opinion having been concurred in by a majority of the Court becomes its judgment.
Affirmed.
Moss, C. ]., and Lewis, J., concur.
Littlejohn and Ness, JJ., dissent.