Could South Carolina lawmakers bar modular homes from local single-family zones despite home rule in 1998?

Plain-English summary

A House subcommittee asked whether home rule prevented the South Carolina legislature from passing H.4756, a proposed statewide ban on installing modular building units on land zoned R-1 or single-family dwelling by local governments. The Attorney General concluded that the bill was a general law of statewide applicability. Under the home-rule framework described in the letter, local authority was subject to such general laws, so home rule did not block the legislature from enacting the proposal.

The opinion addressed legislative power under home rule, not whether excluding modular housing was good policy or whether the proposal might face other legal objections. The letter was informal and concerned a proposed bill in 1998.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did local zoning power prevent the state from passing H.4756?
A: The AG said no. It viewed the proposed restriction as a statewide general law that could govern local powers.

Q: Did the letter say modular homes were already banned from R-1 zones?
A: No. It addressed a proposed bill and whether the legislature had authority to enact it under home rule.

Q: Did the AG endorse the housing policy behind the bill?
A: No. The opinion expressly left the bill's policy to the General Assembly.

Background and statutory framework

H.4756 proposed adding a Code section restricting modular units on property with specified local single-family zoning. The letter invoked Article VIII of the state constitution, local government power provisions, and Town of Hilton Head Island v. Morris to explain that a general statewide law could govern local authority.

Citations and references

• H.4756, the proposed modular housing bill quoted in the letter.
• Town of Hilton Head Island v. Morris, 324 S.C. 30, 484 S.E.2d 104 (1997).
• S.C. Const. Art. VIII, § 7 and § 9, the home-rule provisions cited in the letter.

Official title

Regarding the legality of enacting legislation concerning the elimination of modular housing from a neighborhood zoned “R1” or “Single Family Dwelling.”

Requester

The Honorable George H. Bailey, Member, House of Representatives

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/april-13-1998/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/98april13bailey.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

April 13, 1998

The Honorable George H. Bailey
Member, House of Representatives
308C Blatt Building
Columbia, So_illh Carolina 29211
RE:

Informal Opinion

Dear Representative Bailey:
The opinion request of the Real Estate Subcommittee has been forwarded to me for reply. The subcommittee has asked for this Office's opinion regarding the legality of enacting legislation concerning the elimination of modular housing from a neighborhood zoned "RI" or "Single Family Dwelling." Specifically, the subcommittee is interested in whether or not the State of South Carolina has the authority to regulate such matters, or if these regulations should be left up to the local governments or municipalities under "Home Rule." The particular legislation in question is H.4756. This Bill reads in pertinent part as follows: Section 1. The 1976 Code is amended by adding: "Section 23-43-135. A modular building unit may not be installed on property which has been zoned as 'R-1' or 'single-family dwelling' by a local government pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 27, Title 4, Chapter 23, Title 5 or Chapter 29, Title 6." Under Home Rule, the General Assembly is charged with passing general laws regarding the powers of local government. Town of Hilton Head Island v. Morris, 324 S.C. 30, 484 S.E.2d 104 (1997); S.C. Const. Art. VIII, § 7 (counties) and § 9 REMB ERT C . DENNIS BUILDING

•

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

COLUMBIA, S.C. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE:

803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

Representative Bailey
Page 2
April 13, 1998
(municipalities). The authority of a local government is subject to the general laws passed by the General Assembly. Id; S.C. Code Ann. § 4-9-30 (counties) and § 5-7-30 (municipalities). A general law is one that applies to the entire State and operates wherever the specified conduct takes place. Id. On its face, H.4756 is a general law of statewide applicability. As previously stated, the General Assembly has the authority to pass general laws regarding the powers of local governments. H.4756 meets this description. Therefore, the Home Rule Act would not serve to limit the General Assembly's authority to pass such a law. It should be noted that this opinion only addresses the legality ofH.4756 in regards

to the questions asked. This opinion should not be read as commenting on the policy behind the passage of H.4756 as such is obviously within the discretion of the General Assembly. This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated assistant attorney general and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion.

I

With kindest regards, I remain
Very truly yours,

El.4 l(J

Paul M. Koch
Assistant Attorney General