Grays Hill Baptist Church v. Beaufort County

Opinion No. 27995 (S.C. Sept. 16, 2020) · Supreme Court of South Carolina · September 16, 2020 · No. Appellate Case No. 2019-001201; Opinion No. 27995

Summary

The South Carolina Supreme Court held that Grays Hill Baptist Church’s original 1997 development permit included a planned fellowship hall and remained valid because substantial improvements were completed within two years. The court rejected Beaufort County’s contention that a certificate of compliance closed out the permit and held that the County must issue a construction permit for the fellowship hall under the original permit and plat. The court reversed the court of appeals and did not reach the interpretation of the airport overlay district ordinance.

Holdings

  1. The fellowship hall was included in and approved for development by the original 1997 development permit because it was clearly and plainly shown in the permit application and development plat.
  2. The original development permit did not expire because substantial improvement occurred within two years of its issuance, including construction of the church and the infrastructure necessary to support both the church and fellowship hall.
  3. The County erred in requiring the Church to apply for a new development permit. The construction permit for the fellowship hall was grandfathered by the continued validity of the original development permit and was not subject to the airport overlay district restrictions.
  4. The vested-rights principles applied in Friarsgate and F.B.R. Investors did not control this case.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the original 1997 development permit clearly included the fellowship hall depicted in the permit application and development plat.
  2. Whether the original development permit expired despite substantial improvements to the property being completed within two years of issuance.
  3. Whether the Church was entitled to a construction permit for the fellowship hall under the original development permit, rather than being required to apply for a new permit subject to the airport overlay district ordinance.

Disposition

reversed

Cases Cited (11)

  • Charleston Cty. Parks & Recreation Comm'n v. Somers, 319 S.C. 65, 459 S.E.2d 841 (1995)(followed)
  • Peterson Outdoor Advert. v. City of Myrtle Beach, 327 S.C. 230, 489 S.E.2d 630 (1997)(followed)
  • Talbot v. Myrtle Beach Bd. of Adjustment, 222 S.C. 165, 72 S.E.2d 66 (1952)(followed)
  • Hodge v. Pollock, 223 S.C. 342, 75 S.E.2d 752 (1953)(followed)
  • Rest. Row Assocs. v. Horry Cty., 335 S.C. 209, 516 S.E.2d 442 (1999)(followed)
  • Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 518 S.E.2d 591 (1999)(followed)
  • Friarsgate, Inc. v. Town of Irmo, 290 S.C. 266, 349 S.E.2d 891 (Ct. App. 1986)(distinguished)
  • F.B.R. Investors v. County of Charleston, 303 S.C. 524, 402 S.E.2d 189 (Ct. App. 1991)(distinguished)
  • Johnson v. Sonoco Prods. Co., 381 S.C. 172, 672 S.E.2d 567 (2009)(followed)
  • Vulcan Materials Co. v. Greenville Cty. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 342 S.C. 480, 536 S.E.2d 892 (Ct. App. 2000)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 11.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…