Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Construction Law Blogs -> The South Carolina Construction Law Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Construction Law

: The South Carolina Construction Law Blog

Zoning Considerations: Developers' Reliance on Representations by the County

By Ryan McCabe

ADVERTISEMENTS

            Quail Hill v. laceType>CountylaceType> of laceName>RichlandlaceName>, 379 S.C. 314 (Ct. App. 2008).

            Plaintiff bought property from the government in reliance on representations by County officers and staff regarding zoning. During that time, laceName>RichlandlaceName> laceType>CountylaceType> advertised that the laceName>DevelopmentlaceName> laceName>ServiceslaceName> laceType>CenterlaceType> was the primary information resource for property owners who need to know what can be done with a property. Plaintiff was later told by a county official that the parcel plaintiff was interested in buying was zoned rural, which allowed for a manufactured-home subdivision.

            Once plaintiff bought the parcel, he submitted a site plan for approval by the county. The Planning Commission approved the site plan and plaintiff subdivided the parcel and added some manufactured homes. A year later, it turned out the zoning prohibited manufactured homes and the county ordered the developer to stop of further development. By then, five of the twenty lots had already been sold and some purchasers already got permits to install manufactured homes. Plaintiff then sued the County asking for an injunction (stop the County order to cease development). The trial court rendered judgment for the County.

            Plaintiff made several allegations that the court of appeals reviewed. Plaintiff alleged converse condemnation against the County, which means the government imposed such affirmative and aggressive limitations on property use that such limitations caused the specified damage to the property. The court of appeals, however, pointed out that all the county did was a mistake, which does not constitute an affirmative an aggressive act.

            The purchaser further alleged negligence and negligent misrepresentation against the County. This time the court sided with plaintiff and found that the trial court was wrong in rendering judgment for the County as a matter of law. The court recognized that a government entity is immune from tort claims unless a private party would be liable for breach of that same duty under the ostalCode>South CarolinaostalCode> law. Because the court of appeals looked at the County?s actions in mistakenly advising the buyer, rather than adopting the zoning, it concluded that the County in this situation could be found liable for negligence and negligent misrepresentation.

            This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.

Full post as published by The South Carolina Construction Law Blog on February 19, 2009 (boomark / email).