Did Berkeley County have to notify each resident personally before starting a zoning change?

Plain-English summary

Berkeley County’s planning counsel asked whether citizens had to receive notice before county council initiated a zoning reclassification. The Assistant AG reviewed Section 6-7-730 and the county ordinance, both of which required published notice of a public hearing before enactment. The local ordinance specified at least fifteen days’ newspaper notice.

He said neither provision specified the precise contents of notice. Applying the cited South Carolina appellate decision, he said a notice should fairly and reasonably inform affected people of the nature and character of the proposal. He also said no South Carolina court had ruled on a personal-notice requirement for enacting or amending zoning regulations, while other states had accepted publication. The letter’s actual conclusion addressed publication before enactment; it did not establish a new individual-notice step before council started the process.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997. 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: Was published notice required before the zoning amendment was enacted? A: Yes. The author read the state provision and county ordinance to require a noticed public hearing before enactment.

Q: Had a South Carolina court required personal notice to each affected owner? A: The author said no South Carolina court had addressed that question at the time.

Q: What information did the published notice need to convey? A: Under the cited due-process rule, it needed to fairly and reasonably describe the nature and character of the action to people whose rights might be affected.

Background and statutory framework

Section 6-7-730 required a hearing before enacting or amending zoning regulations or maps. Berkeley County Ordinance Section 14.3 called for published notice, and Brown v. County of Charleston/Charleston County Council supplied the fair-notice principle.

Citations and references

1997 state provision discussed: Section 6-7-730. County provision: Ordinance Section 14.3. Case discussed: Brown v. County of Charleston/Charleston County Council.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/june-2-1997/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/97june2linder.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CH A RLES M O L O N Y C ONDO N
ATTO RN EY GEN ER AL

June 2, 1997

l
I
Amelia R. Linder, Legal Counsel and Director
Berkeley County Planning and Codes Enforcement
223 North Live Oak Drive
Moncks Corner, South Carolina 29461-3707
Re:

Informal Opinion

Dear Ms. Linder:
Your opinion request has been forwarded to me for reply. You ask whether a citizen must be notified before a County Council initiates a zoning reclassification. Berkeley County initially adopted its Zoning and Development Standards Ordinance (Ordinance) in September of 1987 and has amended the Ordinance on various occasions since that time. The Ordinance was enacted pursuant to Section 6-7-730 of the South Carolina Code of Laws. See, Article 1 of the Ordinance. Section 6-7-730 provides that: Before enacting or amending any zoning regulations or maps, the governing authority or the planning commission, if authorized by the governing authority, shall hold a public hearing thereon, which shall be advertised and conducted according to lawfully prescribed procedures. If no established procedures exist, then at least fifteen days' notice of the time and place of such public hearing shall be given in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality or county. The Ordinance itself establishes notice procedures. Pursuant to Section 14.3 of the Ordinance, prior to enacting an amendment, County Council shall hold a public hearing thereon, at least fifteen days notice of the time and place of which shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the County .

•~ )

REM BF.RT C. D rNNJS BUI LDING

JJ./_ .fl /l..JA Ii.Kl

1- { Y . A 77'-7J-

J

•

PosT O FFICE B ox 11 549

•

COLUMBIA.

s.c. 2921 1- 1549

•

T ELEPHONE:

803-734-3970

•

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

Ms. Linder
Page 2
June 2, 1997

I
I

While both Section 14.3 of the Ordinance and Section 6-7-730 of the Code require that notice by publication be given, neither specifies the particular content for public notices relating to zoning amendments. The South Carolina Court of Appeals has found that subject to general principles of due process, notice must fairly and reasonably apprise those whose rights may be affected of the nature and character of the action. Brown v. County of Charleston/Charleston County Council, 303 S.C. 245, 399 S.E.2d 784 (Ct.App. 1990). No court in South Carolina has addressed whether personal notice in required prior to enacting or amending zoning regulations. However, courts in other states have found that notice by publication of zoning amendment proceedings is proper and adequate insofar as the requirements of procedural due process and equal protection are concerned. Wilson v. City of Snellville, 352 S.E.2d 758 (Ga. 1987); Turner v. City of Atlanta, 357 S.E.2d 802 (Ga. 1987); Village of Riverwoods v. County of Lake, 237 N.E.2d 547 (Ill. 1968); Wells v. Village of Libertyville, 505 N.E.2d 740 (Ill. 1987); Bedford Residents v. Bedford Planning Boarg, 547 A.2d 225 (N.H. 1988). To summarize the foregoing, Section 14.3 of the Ordinance and Section 6-7-730 of the Code require that prior to enacting a zoning amendment, notice by publication must be given regarding the holding of a public hearing thereon. This notice must fairly and reasonably apprise those whose rights may be affected of the nature and character of the action. 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. With kindest regards, I remain Very truly yours,

'i?J.;1. ~~
Paul M. Koch
Assistant Attorney General