Could Florence City Council give a zoning amendment first reading before the public hearing?

Plain-English summary

In 1999, the South Carolina Attorney General's office told Florence that its City Council could give a zoning amendment first reading before the planning commission held the required public hearing. The city planned to wait for the commission's report and recommendation before second reading. The office reasoned that first reading did not enact or amend the zoning rule; under the municipal ordinance statute, an ordinance took legal effect only after two readings on separate days. A public hearing before final adoption therefore complied substantially with the zoning hearing statute on the proposed schedule.

The opinion addressed this sequence, not every possible departure from hearing or notice requirements. It was an expedited informal letter.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1999. 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

Did a zoning hearing have to happen before first reading? A: The AG said no for Florence's proposed sequence. The statute required the hearing before enactment, and the office treated enactment as occurring at the second reading.

What happened between Florence's proposed readings?
A: The planning commission would hold the public hearing and deliver its report and recommendation before council's second reading.

Did first reading make the amendment law?
A: No. The opinion read the municipal ordinance statute as withholding force of law until two readings on separate days with the required interval.

Background and statutory framework

Florence's city attorney sought an expedited opinion on the order of council readings and the planning commission hearing. The office applied § 6-29-760(A)'s hearing-before-amendment rule with § 5-7-270's ordinance-reading rule.

Citations and references

The opinion quoted § 6-29-760(A) and § 5-7-270.

Official title

Addressing the procedure for amending a provision of the City’s zoning ordinance.

Requester

James W. Peterson, Jr., Esquire, Florence City Attorney

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/september-21-1999/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/99sept-21-peterson.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLIE CONDON
AITORNEY GENERAL

I

September 21, 1999

James W. Peterson, Jr., Esquire
Florence City Attorney
City-County Complex AA
180 N. Irby Street
Florence, South Carolina 29501
RE:

Informal Opinion

Dear Mr. Peterson:

II
~

Thank you for your letter dated September 20, 1999, requesting an expedited opinion of this Office addressing the procedure for amending a provision of the City's zoning ordinance. Specifically, you seek this Office's concurrence that the chronology described in your letter for amending the City's zoning ordinance does not conflict with the requirements of S.C. Code Ann.
§ 6-29-760(A). For the reasons set forth below, it is my opinion that the City's adherence to the proposed chronology would constitute substantial compliance with§ 6-29-760(A). Section 6-29-760, entitled "Procedure for enactment or amendment of zoning regulation or map; notice and rights of landowners; time limit on challenges," provides in pertinent part as follows: (A) 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 on it, which must be advertised and conducted according to lawfully prescribed procedures .. : . According to your chronology, Florence City Council would have first reading on the proposed amendment prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing on the matter; however, Council would not give second reading until after it has received the Planning Commission's report and recommendation. Accordingly, your question focuses on whether Council has enacted or amended its zoning regulations prior to the public hearing required by§ 6-29-760(A) .

.~::::;EN~,()~~

PosT OFFICE Box 115-19

•

Cou:MlllA, s.c. 29211-15-19

•

T ELEP HOM·: XIJ.1-73-1-.1970

•

F\CSl\tll.E : 80J-2~J-o28J

Mr. Peterson
Page2
September 21, 1999

The procedure for enacting ordinances by municipalities is provided by S.C. Code Ann. § 5-7-270, as follows:

I
I

Every proposed ordinance shall be introduced in writing and in the form required for final adoption. Each municipality shall by ordinance establish its own rules and procedures as to adoption of ordinances. No ordinance shall have the force of law until it shall have been read two times on two separate days with at least six days between each reading. (Emphasis added.) In interpreting a statute, the primary purpose is to ascertain the intent of the General Assembly. State v. Martin, 293 S.C. 46, 358 S.E.2d 697 (1987). The words ofa statute must be given their plain and ordinary meaning without resort to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the statute's operation. Bryant v. City of Charleston, 295 S.C. 408, 368 S.E.2d 899 ( l 988). The Court must apply the clear and unambiguous terms of a statute according to their literal meaning. State v. Blackmon, 304 S.C. 270, 403 S.E.2d 660 (1991).

Applying these rules of statutory construction to the question at hand, the critical language appears to be, "[n]o ordinance shall have the force oflaw until it shall have been read two times .... " Because no enactment or amendment of the zoning regulations would actually occur until the second reading, it is my opinion that the City may give first reading to the proposed amendment prior the Planning Commission's public hearing. Due to the time constraints outlined in your request, this letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Deputy 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,

/!µ).#~
Zeb C. Williams, III
Deputy Attorney General
ZCW/an