Lawsuit Against Georgetown Co. and Covington Homes

ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Mar 10 11:15 AM - GEORGETOWN - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2200210
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

COUNTY OF GEORGETOWN : FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
:
Kendrick A. Bryant and Keisha Bryant : CASE NO.
Sherman on behalf of the heirs of :
Ernest Bryant; Benjamin Dennison and : SUMMONS
Willie Dereef, Jr. on behalf of the heirs :
of Limerick Dennison; Lucille Grate; : Declaratory Judgment
Parkersville Planning & Development : Appeal from Georgetown County Council
Alliance; Keep It Green; and Preserve :
Murrells Inlet, Inc. : Jury Trial Demanded
Plaintiffs :
v. :
:
Georgetown County; Covington :
Homes, LLC :
Defendants :
:
:
______________________________________________________________________________
SUMMONS
TO: THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to answer the Complaint in this action,
a copy of which is herewith served upon you, and to serve a copy of your pleading to said
Complaint upon the subscribers at their offices at P.O. Box 1922, Pawleys Island, SC 29585,
within 30 days after the service hereof, exclusive of the day of such service, and if you fail to
answer the Complaint within the time aforesaid, Plaintiffs will apply to the Court for judgment
by default for the relief demanded in the Complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Cynthia Ranck Person

Cynthia Ranck Person, Esquire (SC Bar #105126)
KEEP IT GREEN ADVOCACY, INC.

P.O. Box 1922
Pawleys Island, SC 29585
(843) 325-7795
(570) 971-8636
[email protected]
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
March 10, 2023
Pawleys Island, South Carolina
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF GEORGETOWN : FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
:
Kendrick A. Bryant and Keisha Bryant : CASE NO.
Sherman on behalf of the heirs of :
Ernest Bryant; Benjamin Dennison and : COMPLAINT
Willie Dereef, Jr. on behalf of the heirs : (Civil Action)
of Limerick Dennison; Lucille Grate; :
Parkersville Planning & Development : Declaratory Judgment
Alliance; Keep It Green; and Preserve : Appeal from Georgetown County Council
Murrells Inlet, Inc. :
Plaintiffs : Jury Trial Demanded
v. :
:
Georgetown County; Covington :
Homes, LLC :
Defendants :
:
:
______________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, bring this Complaint seeking Declaratory
Judgment against Defendants named herein, and an Appeal from a decision by Georgetown
County Council on February 14, 2023, approving a land development subdivision application as
follows:
I.
INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW
1. This Complaint involves two existing Georgetown County ordinances that
Plaintiffs contend are void as conflicting with South Carolina state law, and a land development
decision that was based on the two invalid ordinances.
2. This case arises in the context of a land development application requesting
approval of a high density multi-family subdivision on a parcel of vacant land in the heart of a
2
minority community in Pawleys Island, Georgetown County, South Carolina, zoned as General
Residential ("GR") and designated by the Georgetown County Comprehensive Plan and Maps,
(hereinafter "Comprehensive Plan"), as "Medium Density."
3. The high density subdivision application was denied by Georgetown County
Planning Commission after public hearing on January 19, 2023, on the basis that it conflicted
with the Comprehensive Plan residential density requirements, inter alia. No appeal of this
decision was filed by the applicant.
4. Thereafter, on February 14, 2023, Georgetown County Council reversed the
decision of Planning Commission and approved the high density subdivision application without
further input, review, consideration, or decision by Planning Commission.
First Ordinance that Conflicts with State Law

(County Council Site Plan Review)
5. Georgetown County GR Zoning Ordinance 607 contains provisions that require
County Council to approve land development plans in certain cases of two-family, multi-family
and townhouse developments.
6. Under the South Carolina Comprehensive Planning Enabling Act, (hereinafter
“Planning Act”), Section 6-29-1150, the South Carolina legislature explicitly set forth detailed
procedures for the submission of development plans and conferred specific authority for making
the decision to approve or disapprove development plans on the Planning Commission or
designated staff. Staff decisions are appealable to the Planning Commission and Planning
Commission decisions are appealable to the Circuit Court.
7. The plain language of the state Planning Act provides that the final county
decision-maker on land development plans is the Planning Commission with appeal to the
Circuit Court.
3
8. There is no provision in the Planning Act giving County Council, a legislative
body, authority to make decisions on or to hear appeals of land development plans.
9. The GR Zoning Ordinance provisions requiring County Council to make the final
decision on land development plans conflicts with and is pre-empted by the explicit provisions of
state law which confer this decision on Planning Commission with appeal to Circuit Court.
10. Under fundamental principles of South Carolina law, county ordinances that
conflict with state law are void.
11. The Georgetown County GR ordinance provisions that require site plan reviews
by County Council are void as a matter of law.
12. County Council had no authority to hear or approve the subdivision application on
February 14, 2023, and its decision is void as a matter of law.
Second Ordinance that Conflicts with State Law

(GR Density Provisions)
13. At all times pertinent hereto, the parcel in question was zoned General Residential
(GR) and was designated by the Comprehensive Plan as "Medium Density."
14. "Medium Density" is defined by the Comprehensive Plan to allow a maximum of
five (5) residential units per acre.
15. GR Zoning Ordinance 607 allows a maximum residential density of sixteen (16)
units per acre.
16. The South Carolina Planning Act specifically requires that zoning regulations
“must be made in accordance with the comprehensive plan for the jurisdiction,” and provides
that the purpose of a zoning ordinance is to “implement the comprehensive plan." S.C. Code,
Section 6-29-720(A) & (B).
4
17. The plain language of the state law requirement that zoning ordinances be in
accordance with the Comprehensive Plan is mandatory and unconditional.
18. The GR zoning ordinance, which allows high density, i.e., a maximum residential
density of sixteen (16) units per acre, is not in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan
designation of this parcel as "Medium Density" which allows a maximum of five (5) units per
acre.
19. To the extent that the GR zoning ordinance permits residential density of more
than five (5) units per acre on land parcels designated as "Medium Density" by the
Comprehensive Plan, it conflicts with the state law requirement that zoning "must be in
accordance with the comprehensive plan."
20. Under fundamental principles of South Carolina law, county ordinances that
conflict with state law are void.
21. The residential density provisions of the GR zoning ordinance that allow more
than five (5) units per acre on land designated "Medium Density" by the Comprehensive Plan are
void as a matter of law.
22. The County Council decision of February 14, 2023, was based on invalid
provisions of the GR ordinance and is void as a matter of law.
23. For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiffs submit as follows:
a. The February 14, 2023, decision by County Council to approve the
subdivision site plan application is void and of no force or effect.
b. The February 14, 2023, decision by County Council to approve the
subdivision site plan application was arbitrary, capricious, and otherwise
improper as set forth more particularly hereinafter.
5
c. The January 19, 2023, decision of Planning Commission to deny the
subdivision application is the final decision from which no appeal to the
Circuit Court was filed, and therefore, is the valid and binding decision.
d. GR zoning ordinance provisions that allow high residential density on land
designated by the Comprehensive Plan as Medium Density are void as a
matter of law, and land development decisions based thereon are null, void
and of no force or effect.
II.
LAND PARCEL AT ISSUE
24. The parcel of land upon which the subdivision was proposed is owned by
Covington Homes, LLC, (hereinafter "Covington Homes"), and was acquired by Deed dated
April 7, 2022, Tax Map No. 04-0204-025-03-00, recorded in Georgetown County Deed Book
4332, Page 243, having the address of 319 Petigru Drive, and consisting of 2.01 acres of vacant
forested land, including wetlands, hereinafter "Covington Homes parcel."
25. The Covington Homes parcel is located in the heart of one of the oldest and most
historically significant African American neighborhoods of Pawleys Island, Georgetown County,
South Carolina, known as Fraserville.
26. The Covington Homes parcel was designated as "Medium Density" by the
Georgetown County Comprehensive Plan at the time Covington Homes acquired it on April 7,
2022.
27. On or about December 20, 2022, Covington Homes and its agent Bryan Lenertz,
submitted a Major Subdivision Application requesting approval to construct twelve (12) multi-
family high density duplex units with infrastructure including driveways, sidewalks, and parking
6
areas, on approximately 1.5 net buildable acres for a net residential density of 7.74 units per acre,
which significantly exceeds the medium density limitation of 5 units per acre.
28. Public hearing on this Major Subdivision Application was scheduled before
Planning Commission on January 19, 2023.
III.
PARTIES
Plaintiffs
29. Plaintiffs, Kendrick A. Bryant and Keisha Bryant Sherman, on behalf of the heirs
of Lazarus and/or Ernest Bryant, are adult individuals having an address of 300 Petigru Drive,
Pawleys Island, Georgetown County, South Carolina, and own and reside on three parcels of
land consisting of approximately 5 acres that directly adjoin the Covington Homes parcel,
identified as Georgetown County Tax Map Nos. 04-0416-020-00-00, 04-0416-020-01-00, 04-
0416-020-02-00, by deeds recorded in the Office of Recorder of Deeds for Georgetown County.
Kendrick A. Bryant and Keisha Bryant Sherman have signed an Affidavit attached hereto as
Exhibit “1,” and incorporated herein by reference.
30. Plaintiffs, Benjamin Dennison and Willie Dereef, Jr., on behalf of the heirs of
Limerick Dennison, are adult individuals having addresses of 92 Ferguson Drive, Pawleys
Island, Georgetown County, South Carolina, and 132 Ferguson Drive, Pawleys Island,
Georgetown County, South Carolina, respectively, and own and reside on three parcels of land
consisting of approximately 9.2 acres that directly adjoin the Covington Homes parcel, identified
as Georgetown County Tax Map Nos. 04-0416-018-00-00, 04-0416-018-01-00, 04-0416-018-02-
00, by Deed dated February 21, 1882, recorded in Deed Book H, Page 97, in the Office of
Recorder of Deeds for Georgetown County. Benjamin Dennison and Willie Dereef, Jr., have
7
signed Affidavits attached hereto as Exhibits “2,” and "3," respectively which are incorporated
herein by reference.
31. Plaintiff, Lucille Grate, is an adult individual who resides at 328 Petigru Drive,
Pawleys Island, Georgetown County, South Carolina, and owns and lives on land directly across
Petigru Drive from the Covington Homes parcel, identified as Tax Map No. 04-0157-005-00-00,
by Deed recorded in Deed Book 1305, Page 196, in the Office of Recorder of Deeds for
Georgetown County. Lucille Grate has signed an Affidavit attached hereto as Exhibit “4,” and
incorporated herein by reference.
32. Plaintiff, Parkersville Planning & Development Alliance, (hereinafter
“Parkersville PDA”), is a nonprofit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
State of South Carolina, having an address c/o Rev. Johnny A. Ford, President, 511 Petigru
Drive, Pawleys Island, Georgetown County, South Carolina. Affidavit signed by Johnny A. Ford,
President of Parkersville PDA, who personally resides approximately 750 feet from the
Covington Homes parcel, is attached hereto as Exhibit “5,” and incorporated herein by reference.
33. The mission of Parkersville PDA is to protect and preserve the history, culture,
and character of the traditional African American communities of Parkersville and Fraserville,
which are the oldest minority settlements in the Waccamaw Neck area of Georgetown County.
34. The Parkersville PDA represents residents of Parkersville and Fraserville in the
promotion of housing, land use, and economic development that fits within the character,
infrastructure, and needs of the community.
35. The Parkersville PDA was formed to represent and speak for the minority
community which has been substantially and negatively impacted by county land use decisions
and zoning ordinances that conflict with the Comprehensive Plan or otherwise have allowed
8
undesirable and harmful commercial or other encroachment into the residential
Parkersville/Fraserville community such as garbage dumps, recycling centers, storage facilities,
electric substations, transformers and the like. This pattern of decision-making has had
permanent detrimental and discriminatory impact on this traditional historical minority
neighborhood.
36. The Parkersville PDA represents the interests of the named Plaintiffs herein as
well as many other residents and landowners in the vicinity of the proposed high density
subdivision at issue in this case that threatens to continue a pattern of permanent and detrimental
impact to this historical minority community.
37. Plaintiff, Keep It Green, (hereinafter “KIG”), is a nonprofit corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of South Carolina, having an address of P.O. Box 3312,
Pawleys Island, Georgetown County, South Carolina. Affidavit signed by Duane Draper,
Chairman of KIG and resident of Pawleys Island, is attached hereto as Exhibit “6,” and
incorporated herein by reference.
38. Plaintiff, Preserve Murrells Inlet, Inc., (hereinafter “PMI”), is a nonprofit
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of South Carolina, having an
address of 4510 Richmond Hill Drive, Murrells Inlet, Georgetown County, South Carolina.
Affidavit signed by Leon L. Rice, III, President of PMI and resident of Murrells Inlet, is attached
hereto as Exhibit “7,” and incorporated herein by reference.
39. KIG and PMI are citizens’ organizations comprised of thousands of residents of
the Waccamaw Neck, Georgetown County, South Carolina, who are concerned about the impact
of land use decisions, zoning changes, increased residential density, and inappropriate
9
development on traffic, flooding, environment, overburdened infrastructure, natural character,
quality of life, and other matters of safety and general welfare in the Waccamaw Neck.
40. The Waccamaw Neck is a part of northeast Georgetown County defined by its
unique geographic configuration as a long narrow peninsula between the Atlantic Ocean and the
Waccamaw River that includes the areas of Parkersville/Fraserville, Pawleys Island, Litchfield,
North Litchfield, Murrells Inlet and Garden City.
41. KIG primarily focuses on the southern Waccamaw Neck (Parkersville/Fraserville,
Pawleys Island, Litchfield, North Litchfield) and PMI primarily focuses on the northern
Waccamaw Neck (Murrells Inlet & Garden City).
42. Part of the missions of KIG and PMI involves monitoring county land use
decisions, zoning change requests, and proposed development in the Waccamaw Neck for
compliance with proper law, procedure, and the Georgetown County Comprehensive Plan for the
purpose of protecting and preserving the land, quality of life, and natural character of the
Waccamaw Neck for the benefit of present and future generations.
43. KIG and PMI began as grassroots responses by citizens of the Waccamaw Neck
to a number of zoning changes, approved and/or recommended for approval by Georgetown
County, that increased residential density in conflict with the Georgetown County
Comprehensive Plan and had a negative impact on the safety and general welfare of citizens and
surrounding landowners.
44. Parkersville PDA, KIG and PMI are nonprofit corporations that are independent
of one another and managed by separate volunteer Boards of Directors.
10
45. Parkersville PDA, KIG, and PMI represent the interests of thousands of citizens
of the Waccamaw Neck, hundreds of whom reside in the vicinity of the Covington Homes
parcel.
46. Parkersville PDA, KIG, and PMI represent the interests of the named Plaintiffs
herein as well as other adjoining landowners or landowners who reside in the immediate vicinity
of the Covington Homes parcel or other areas of the Waccamaw Neck where zoning is not in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan as required by state law and as set forth hereinafter,
and who would have standing to challenge these and other decisions.
Defendants
47. The South Carolina Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, S.C. Code, Section 15-
53-80 requires that
“[w]hen declaratory relief is sought all persons shall be made

parties who have or claim any interest which would be affected by
the declaration, and no declaration shall prejudice the rights of
persons not parties to the proceeding. In any proceeding which
involves the validity of a municipal ordinance or franchise the
municipality shall be made a party and shall be entitled to be
heard.”
Accordingly, the following parties are required to be named as Defendants in this action for
declaratory relief.
48. Defendant Georgetown County (hereinafter “County”), 129 Screven Street,
Georgetown, South Carolina, is one of the forty-six counties of the State of South Carolina and is
a body politic incorporated pursuant to the South Carolina Constitution, Article VII, Sec. 9,
South Carolina Code Ann. § 4-1-10 (Supp. 2015).
11
49. Defendant Georgetown County is comprised of and/or controls the Georgetown
County Council, the Georgetown County Planning Commission and the Georgetown County
Planning Department, its agents, representatives and employees.
50. Defendant, Covington Homes, LLC, owner of the Covington Homes parcel, is a
limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of South Carolina,
having a business address of 4210 River Oaks Drive, Suite 5, Myrtle Beach, Horry County,
South Carolina, 29579, and a registered agent name and address of Gregory B. Harrelson, at
4210 River Oaks Drive, Suite 5, Myrtle Beach, Horry County, South Carolina 29579.
IV.
APPLICABLE LAW
A. SOUTH CAROLINA STATE LAW
51. The following are the relevant provisions of the South Carolina Planning Act that
require zoning and land development to be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.
a. Planning Act, Section 6-29-720(B), governs planning and zoning and specifically
requires that zoning regulations “must be made in accordance with the
comprehensive plan for the jurisdiction.”
b. Planning Act, Section 6-29-720(A), provides that the purpose of a zoning
ordinance is to “implement the comprehensive plan.”
c. Planning Act, Section 6-29-540, requires that the “location, character, and extent”
of new development must be compatible “with the comprehensive plan of the
community.”
d. Planning Act, Section 6-29-1110, et seq., governs land development regulations
and sets forth definitions as well as procedures for local governments to follow in
12
regulating land development within their jurisdictions. One of the specifically
articulated legislative intents of Article 7 is to “assure” that proposed
development is “in harmony with the comprehensive plan” of the municipality or
county. (Planning Act, Section 6-29-1120(5)).
52. As set forth above, the South Carolina legislature has made it abundantly clear
throughout the South Carolina Planning Act that zoning and land development are required to be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
B. GEORGETOWN COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
i. General
53. The “Introduction” to the original Georgetown County Comprehensive Land Use
Plan enacted in August of 1997, which is currently in effect, specifically recognizes and
reinforces the requirements of the South Carolina Planning Act and states as follows:
“In order for local ordinances regulating land use to be valid, they must be adopted
in accordance with a locally adopted [comprehensive] plan ... [and] once the Plan
is adopted, no [development] ... may be constructed or authorized ... until the
location, character and extent of it have been submitted to the planning commission
for review and comment as to the compatibility of the proposal with the
comprehensive plan for the community.” (page 1-4)
ii. Covington Homes Parcel & Adjoining Land
54. The current Comprehensive Land Use Plan, including maps, was enacted by
County Council on March 10, 2015, by Ordinance number 2015-05, and specifically designates
the Covington Homes parcel as “Medium Density,” which limits net residential density to a
maximum of 5 units per acre.
55. All parcels of land that adjoin the Covington Homes parcel are designated by the
Comprehensive Plan as “Medium Density” residential.
13
56. All residential areas of the traditional Parkersville/Fraserville minority community
are designated by the Comprehensive Plan as “Medium Density,” or “Low Density,” (maximum
of two (2) units per acre).
iii. Density Increases Restricted in South Waccamaw Neck
57. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan specifically states as follows with respect to
residential density in the South Waccamaw Neck:
“The overriding issue in the Pawleys-Litchfield area is population density. The

general concept of allowing higher density to prevent sprawl is no longer applicable
in this area. The key now is to limit the number of new residential units that are
added so that the impacts of additional development (i.e. increased traffic
congestion, increased storm water runoff, greater pressures on our overall
infrastructure) are minimized as much as possible.”
(Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Page 23). A copy of this portion of the Comprehensive Plan is
attached hereto as Exhibit “8,” and incorporated herein by reference.
58. The Comprehensive Plan further states as follows with respect to the South
Waccamaw Neck:
“Density increases in new development should only be allowed if open space is

provided by use of planning tools: as part of a Planned Development District,
Transfer Development Rights, Cluster Development, or land placed in a
Conservation Easement, etc.”
(Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Page 25). A copy of this portion of the Comprehensive Plan is
attached hereto as Exhibit “9,” and incorporated herein by reference.
59. The clear intention of this provision is to restrict density increases in new
development and allow them only when there is a corresponding density decrease or elimination
(i.e., by creating “open space”) through use of one of the enumerated planning tools which are
specifically designed to offset a density increase.
14
60. None of these exceptions or planning tools apply to the Covington Homes
subdivision application, and, therefore, density is limited to a maximum of 5 units per acre as
designated by the Comprehensive Plan.
61. Density restrictions were deliberately included in the Comprehensive Plan
because the South Waccamaw Neck was then and is now facing unprecedented population
growth resulting in critically overburdened infrastructure, increasing volumes of traffic that
exceed road design capacity, increasing numbers of serious and life-threatening motor vehicle
accidents, increasing flooding and stormwater problems as a consequence of clear cutting and
filling in wetlands, as well as other environmental and safety challenges resulting from
overdevelopment of the limited geographic space of the South Waccamaw Neck.
C. GEORGETOWN COUNTY ORDINANCES
i. General Residential Ordinance
62. GR Zoning Ordinance 607 permits a range of residential uses and a range of
residential densities, including both medium and high density, up to a maximum of sixteen (16)
units per acre.
63. Determination of the maximum permissible residential density on a particular
parcel within a GR Zoning District, should consider the provisions of all applicable land use
regulations, including but not limited to:
a. The residential density permitted by the Comprehensive Plan as set forth above
(in this case 5 units per acre);
b. The conditions and limitations set forth within the GR zoning ordinance itself,
including proposed use, design, and setback requirements; and
15
c. The requirements of all other applicable laws, ordinances, and/or development
regulations, including those set forth below that dictate mandatory application of
the most restrictive regulation in the case of conflict.
ii. Ordinances Require Application of Most Restrictive Regulation
64. According to the following Georgetown County ordinances, when there is a
conflict between or among zoning or land development regulations, the most restrictive applies.
a. Section 1800 of the Georgetown County Zoning Ordinance provides:
“in case of conflict between this Ordinance or any part thereof, and
the whole or part of any existing or future ordinance of the County
of Georgetown, the most restrictive shall in all cases apply.”
b. Article I, Section 10, of the Georgetown County Development Regulations states:
“Whenever this Ordinance imposes a higher standard than that

required by other resolutions, ordinances, rules or regulations,
easements, covenants or agreements, the provisions of this
Ordinance shall govern. When the provisions of any other statute
impose higher standards, the provisions of such statute shall
govern.
65. In the present case, as the most restrictive regulation, the Comprehensive Plan
"Medium Density" designation limits density to a maximum of 5 units per acre on the Covington
Homes Parcel.
V.
COUNTY DECISION PROCESS
A. PLANNING COMMISSION PROPERLY DENIED
66. The Georgetown County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
Covington Homes major subdivision application on January 19, 2023, and after considering the
evidence, including considerable testimony from interested parties, voted to deny the application
16
on the basis of its inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan density restrictions, as well as
flooding, stormwater and traffic, and general detriment to the neighbors and community.
67. The Planning Commission decision was proper in all respects and no appeal of
the decision to deny was filed by Covington Homes.
68. The Planning Commission decision to deny should be the final and binding
decision.
B. COUNTY COUNCIL IMPROPERLY REVIEWED & APPROVED
i. No Authority
69. The Covington Homes subdivision application was placed on the County Council
agenda for February 14, 2023, under the heading “Reports to Council” as agenda item 14(a),
“Site Plan Review,” pursuant to the ordinance provisions cited hereinabove. A copy of the
February 14, 2023, County Council agenda is attached hereto as Exhibit “10,” and incorporated
herein by reference.
70. Georgetown County ordinances requiring site plans to be approved by County
Council are void and unenforceable for the following reasons:
a. They are inconsistent with explicit provisions of state law as set forth
hereinabove.
b. They violate the doctrine of separation of powers.
c. They reserve to County Council arbitrary power without the guidance of uniform
rules and regulations.
d. They do not articulate any standards by which the County Council should decide
to approve or disapprove the decision by Planning Commission.
e. They violate the South Carolina Planning Act and other law.
17
71. Accordingly, County Council did not have authority to hear, review or approve
this land development application, or to review, modify, or reverse the decision of Planning
Commission, and its decision to approve is void as a matter of law.
ii. Improper, Arbitrary & Capricious
72. Even if Council had possessed the authority to hear and make a decision on this
subdivision application, which is specifically denied, the details, substance, and merits of the
plan and its compliance or noncompliance with all applicable laws and regulations including
South Carolina state law, the Georgetown County Comprehensive Plan, the GR ordinance and
other land development regulations was not addressed or considered by Council in any way.
73. In fact, the information packet submitted to council by the Planning Department
for its consideration did not include all pertinent facts and neglected to include any information
about the Comprehensive Plan designation of the Covington Homes parcel. Please see Agenda
Request Form and packet attached hereto as Exhibit “11,” and incorporated herein by reference.
(a) Erroneous Instructions
74. County Council was specifically instructed in the Agenda Request Form as well
as during the February 14, 2022, meeting, that its review was "limited to compliance with the
land use regulations of the County, as the use has already been properly designated by
establishment of the zoning district."
75. This instruction improperly made the predetermined conclusion that the use was
"properly" designated by the establishment of the zoning district, and prevented Council from
reviewing state law to determine whether the use was, in fact, "properly" designated, which is
Council's very duty and responsibility.
18
76. Where, as in the present situation, the established zoning district is not in
accordance with the Comprehensive Plan as required by state law, the use is not "properly"
designated.
77. Council was instructed not to and/or otherwise did not consider the following
critical matters:
a. Whether the county ordinance requiring Council to review this land development
application was void as conflicting with explicit provisions of state law.
b. Whether the county GR zoning ordinance density provisions, which Council was
instructed to follow as its sole consideration, were void as conflicting with the
mandatory state law requirement that zoning ordinances must be in accordance
with the Comprehensive Plan.
c. County Zoning Ordinance 1800, and Land Use Regulation Article I, Section 10,
requiring application of the most restrictive regulation.
c. Whether the proposed land development was in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan as required by state and local law.
d. Inconsistency of the proposed high density development with the Comprehensive
Plan designation of this parcel as “Medium Density.”
e. That all adjoining parcels are designated by the Comprehensive Plan as “Medium
Density.”
f. The findings of Planning Commission after consideration of evidence presented at
a public hearing and the specifically articulated reasons set forth by Planning
Commission as the basis for its decision to deny the subdivision application.
19
d. Land development regulations that specifically allow consideration of flooding,
stormwater, traffic, infrastructure, character of the neighborhood, and detriment to
the community.
78. Council was advised by the Planning Director at the meeting on February 14,
2023, and in written materials submitted to Council, that the proposed subdivision complied with
all county ordinances and regulations and that the Planning Department recommended approval.
79. Essentially Council was asked to rubber stamp the Planning Department
recommendation and bypass the Planning Commission decision, the Public Hearing, the
Comprehensive Plan inconsistencies, and the requirements of the South Carolina Planning Act.
80. County Council has been repeatedly advised that Georgetown County would be
vulnerable to lawsuits by Developers if it does not approve land development applications based
on the zoning ordinance alone, without regard to state law requirements, without regard to
whether the zoning ordinance is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, without regard to
whether the proposed land development conforms to the Comprehensive Plan, and without
regard to many other legitimate considerations such as flooding, stormwater, traffic,
infrastructure, character of the surrounding neighborhood and detriment to adjoining landowners
and the community.
81. Georgetown County land use decisions have been consistently driven by a "fear
of lawsuits by Developers" and not by proper and legitimate considerations such as consistency
with state law and the Comprehensive Plan. As a result, citizens of the county, particularly those
in minority communities, have suffered serious harm.
20
82. The Georgetown County land development decision-making process, as
exemplified by this situation, obviates the need for a Planning Commission or a South Carolina
legislature.
(b) Arbitrary & Capricious
83. Based on the above instructions, County Council voted to approve the Covington
Homes high density subdivision on a parcel of land designated as Medium Density by its own
Comprehensive Plan maps.
84. The following Council members voted to approve the development: Clint Elliott
(District 1); Stella Mercado (District 6); Raymond Newton (District 5); Louis Morant (District
7); Lillie Jean Johnson (District 4). The following council members opposed the development:
Bob Anderson (District 2); Everett Carolina (District 3).
85. The decision by Council and the underlying instructions which formed the basis
of the decision are erroneous as follows:
a. State law was deliberately not taken into consideration.
b. The Comprehensive Plan was deliberately not taken into consideration
notwithstanding the state law mandate that zoning ordinances and land
development must be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.
c. Conflict with the Comprehensive Plan density restrictions was disregarded.
d. Other applicable laws were not considered including Georgetown County Zoning
Ordinance, Section 1800, and Land Development Regulation, Article I, Section
10, requiring application of the most restrictive land development regulations.
e. New development was approved without considering its compatibility with the
comprehensive plan in violation of Planning Act, Section 6-29-540, which
21
provides that no new development should be permitted “until the location,
character, and extent of it have been submitted to the planning commission for
review and comment as to the compatibility of the proposal with the
comprehensive plan of the community.”
f. New development was approved as complying with the GR zoning ordinance
when details of the plans were not considered or discussed by Council and do not,
in fact, comply with all applicable ordinances, including the GR ordinance.
g. Development was approved without applying uniform standards or considering
other applicable law.
h. The decision by Council conflicts with its own ordinance 2015-05, i.e., the
Comprehensive Plan and maps.
86. The decision to allow a high density subdivision in contravention of the
Comprehensive Plan residential density restriction sets a precedent for (a) ignoring the
Comprehensive Plan in making future land use decisions, and (b) allowing high density land
development on many acres of other land in Georgetown County that is designated as medium or
low density by the Comprehensive Plan.
87. The cumulative incremental impact of density increases in the South Waccamaw
Neck has had, would have, and is having devastating and far-reaching negative consequences to
all citizens, and a disparate discriminatory impact on minority communities.
(c) No Public Hearing
88. Numerous adjoining landowners and neighboring residents attended the Council
meeting on February 14, 2023, to express their opposition. No public hearing was provided and
interested parties had no opportunity to present evidence. The only opportunity for input of any
22
kind was the very limited time afforded during the General Public Comment period at the
beginning of the meeting.
89. Legal counsel for interested parties directed a letter to Council dated February 13,
2023, raising the matters that form the basis of this complaint, none of which were considered at
the meeting. A copy of said letter is attached hereto as Exhibit “12,” and incorporated herein by
reference. There were numerous letters of opposition and no letters in support.
VI.
DUTIES OF GEORGETOWN COUNTY WITH RESPECT TO

ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
90. Defendant Georgetown County through its agents, representatives, employees,
elected officials, boards and appointed officials has the following duties and responsibilities
pursuant to the South Carolina Planning Act and local law:
a. Duty to bring residential zoning ordinances and land development regulations into
conformity with the current Georgetown County Comprehensive Plan as
specifically required by Planning Act Sections 6-29-720 and 6-29-1120.
b. Duty to bring the decision-making processes in land development and zoning
change requests into compliance with state law which requires review for
compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan as a condition of approval pursuant to
Planning Act Sections 6-29-540, 6-29-720, and 6-29-1120, and Georgetown
County Planning Commission Bylaws, Article V, Section 2, which states that
“[a]ll zoning and development regulation amendments shall be reviewed first for
conformity with the comprehensive plan.”
23
91. South Carolina Planning Act, Section 6-29-340, mandates that it is the “duty” of
the local planning commission to put these processes into place for the benefit and welfare of the
public which it serves.
92. The duties identified in paragraphs 90 and 91 above, shall collectively be referred
to as “required duties.”
93. The “Introduction” to the first Georgetown County Comprehensive Land Use
Plan, adopted in August of 1997, states:
“One of the most important implementation measures is the immediate

preparation of revisions to the Georgetown County Zoning Ordinance. The
adoption of the Comprehensive Plan represents the direction or
“blueprint,” but the actual governing laws and ordinances must change to
reflect the goals and action items within the Plan. Once the Plan is
adopted, the planning staff will immediately commence work on changes
to the Zoning Ordinances.” (page 1-5 and 1-6)
94. More than twenty-five years after this language was adopted by Georgetown
County ordinance, zoning ordinances have still not been revised or changed to be in accordance
with the Comprehensive Plan as required by the South Carolina Planning Act and the
Georgetown County Comprehensive Plan itself.
A. Existing Zoning Ordinances Conflict with Comprehensive Plan
95. To the extent that the GR zoning ordinance permits high density land
development on land designated by the Comprehensive Plan and Maps as medium or low
density, the zoning ordinance is in direct conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
96. There are many existing zoning districts on parcels of land in the Waccamaw
Neck that are in direct conflict with the Comprehensive Plan as they relate to residential density.
97. Under both state and local law, these conflicting zoning ordinances should have
been brought into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan immediately upon its enactment.
24
Instead, conflicting zoning ordinances have been permitted to exist, in some cases for many
decades, despite their inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan and Maps.
98. The County’s failure to perform its duty to bring residential zoning ordinances
into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan has caused injury to the Plaintiffs herein, and put
Plaintiffs and every other land owner in the Waccamaw Neck at risk of imminent harm and
serious injury.
99. The County has repeatedly approved development pursuant to these conflicting
zoning ordinances notwithstanding their inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan density
limitations.
100. These approvals have negatively affected the property rights of many land owners
in the Waccamaw Neck.
101. Conflicting zoning ordinances and land use decisions are more prevalent in
minority communities and have had a discriminatory impact on the minority population living in
these communities.
B. Land Use Approval Process
102. In making zoning and land development decisions, Georgetown County does not
consider compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan as a necessary part of the process.
103. There are many instances of approval of land development and zoning changes on
the Waccamaw Neck that were inconsistent with density and other provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan and Maps. These approvals have negatively affected the property rights and
caused injury to many land owners in the Waccamaw Neck.
25
104. Approval of zoning changes and land development that conflict with the
Comprehensive Plan are more prevalent in minority communities and have had a discriminatory
impact on the minority residents of these communities.
C. Georgetown County Refuses to Comply
105. Georgetown County has repeatedly been requested by Plaintiff organizations and
citizens to bring its zoning ordinances and land use approval processes into compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan as required by the South Carolina Planning Act.
106. A letter dated September 2, 2022, attached hereto as Exhibit “13,” and
incorporated herein by reference, was directed to Georgetown County by legal counsel for
Plaintiff organizations and citizens specifically requesting compliance. Georgetown County has
neither acknowledged nor responded to the letter.
107. At all times pertinent hereto, Georgetown County has failed and/or refused to
perform the required duties as set forth herein.
108. Georgetown County’s continued failure and refusal to perform its required duties
has caused harm and created a risk of imminent and future injury to Plaintiffs and other land
owners in the Waccamaw Neck.
has had a substantially greater negative impact on minority neighborhoods and minority land
owners.
sets a precedent for allowing development that does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan and
maps.
26
111. Plaintiffs request that Georgetown County immediately bring the zoning of the
Covington Homes parcel as well as all other non-compliant zoning and decision-making
processes into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the South Carolina Planning Act.
JURISDICTION, STANDING AND VENUE
112. Paragraphs 1 through 111, above, are incorporated by reference as though fully
set forth herein.
113. This court has jurisdiction to hear these claims arising under the South Carolina
Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, South Carolina Comprehensive Planning Enabling Act, the
common law of South Carolina and other law.
114. Venue is proper in Georgetown County as the property in question is situated in
Georgetown County and all pertinent actions took place in Georgetown County.
115. Plaintiffs have statutory standing to challenge these ordinances as follows:
a. South Carolina Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, S.C. Code Ann., Section 15-
53-30, states
“[a]ny person ... whose rights, status or other legal relations are
affected by a statute, municipal ordinance, contract or franchise
may have determined any question of construction or validity
arising under the instrument, statute, ordinance, contract or
franchise and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal
relations thereunder.”
Plaintiffs’ rights and legal relations have been and are substantially affected by
the County Council decision of February 14, 2023, the Planning Commission
decisions of January 19, 2023, Georgetown County’s Zoning Ordinances, Land
Development Regulations and Comprehensive Plan, and the South Carolina
27
Planning Act. Plaintiffs have standing to ask the court to determine rights, status,
validity and other legal relations with regard to these statutes, ordinances and
decisions.
b. South Carolina Comprehensive Planning Enabling Act, S.C. Code Ann., Section
6-29-1150 and 6-29-1155, states that any party in interest may appeal land
development decisions. Rule 74, SCRCP (“Procedure on Appeal to the Circuit
Court”) governs appeals from “an inferior court or decision of an administrative
agency or tribunal” to circuit court. Plaintiffs are parties in interest under the
Planning Act.
116. Alternatively and in addition, Plaintiffs have constitutional standing pursuant to
Article III of the United States Constitution inasmuch as (a) they have suffered an injury by
virtue of land use decisions with respect to property that directly adjoins land owned by them or
by someone they represent; (b) the injury was caused by the improper approval of subdivision
applications and Georgetown County’s failure and refusal to perform required duties; and (c) the
injury is redressable by a favorable decision of this court declaring that the approval of the
subdivision applications by County Council is improper, null and void, and requiring
Georgetown County to perform its required duties.
117. Alternatively and in addition, Plaintiffs have standing to challenge these
ordinances pursuant to the public importance doctrine inasmuch as the decision in this case has
potentially far-reaching, widespread, devastating and irreversible negative impact on the public
welfare by serving as a precedent for similar land development decisions that would impact
many acres in the Waccamaw Neck, and future guidance by this court is necessary to determine
28
the validity of Georgetown County’s repeated disregard of the requirements of the South
Carolina Planning Act and the Comprehensive Plan in the Waccamaw Neck.
118. Plaintiffs Parkersville PDA, KIG, and PMI have associational standing as follows:
(a) at least one of the parties represented is an affected person who has standing in his or her own
right; (b) the interests at stake are germane to the organization’s purpose; and (c) neither the
claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual landowners and
monetary damages are not being requested. Plaintiffs Parkersville PDA, KIG, and PMI represent
the interests of the named Plaintiffs as well as other affected persons who own adjoining land or
reside in the vicinity of the Petigru and Parkersville parcels and other land where zoning is not in
compliance with the comprehensive plan or where land use decisions have been made that are
not in compliance with the comprehensive plan. The issues in this case fall squarely within the
mission and purpose of these citizens organizations as set forth above.
COUNT I
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
Georgetown County Ordinances Requiring Site Plan Review by

County Council are Void and Unenforceable
set forth herein.
120. Pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, S.C. Code
Ann., Section 15-53-10, et seq., Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment from this Court that the
Georgetown County ordinances requiring land development plans to be approved by County
Council are inconsistent with the explicit provisions of state law and are void, and of no force or
effect.
29
COUNT II
County Council Had No Authority to Render the February 14, 2023,

Decision Approving Subdivision Application
set forth herein.
122. Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment from this Court that the February 14, 2023,
County Council decision to reverse the Planning Commission decision and approve the
Covington Homes subdivision application is null, void, and of no force or effect.
COUNT III
Planning Commission Decision to Deny

Subdivision Application on January 19, 2023, was Final, Valid and Binding
set forth herein.
124. Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment from this Court that the January 19, 2023,
Planning Commission decision to deny this subdivision application is the valid, proper, and final
decision as follows:
a. The South Carolina Planning Act 6-29-1150 confers final decision-making
authority on subdivision applications to Planning Commission whose decisions
are appealable to the circuit court.
b. Planning Commission properly voted to deny the subdivision applications after
public hearing on January 19, 2023.
30
c. The sole process for review, modification, or reversal of a Planning Commission
approval or disapproval of a land development application is by appeal to the
circuit court within thirty (30) days after mailing of the Notice of Decision.
d. No appeal was taken by the applicant from this decision as provided in the
Planning Act, and this decision stands as the final, valid and binding decision.
COUNT IV
Georgetown County Zoning Ordinances

Allowing High Density on Land Parcels Designated by the
Comprehensive Plan as Medium Density are Void and Unenforceable
set forth herein.
126. Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment from this Court that the provisions of the
Georgetown County zoning ordinances that allow high residential density on land designated by
the Comprehensive Plan as Medium Residential Density are inconsistent with the explicit state
law requirement that zoning ordinances must be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and
are void, and of no force or effect.
COUNT V
The Approval of the Subdivision Application

was a Violation of State and County Law
set forth herein.
31
128. Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment from this Court that even if Council had
authority to make decisions on the subdivision application, the February 14, 2023, decision to
approve is null, void, and of no force or effect as follows:
a. The approval of development that conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan and
Maps violates the South Carolina Planning Act which requires development and
zoning to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
b. The approval of development that violates county ordinance 2015-05
(Comprehensive Plan and Maps) is improper, null, void and of no force or effect.
c. A development decision that fails to take compatibility of the Comprehensive
Plan into consideration violates the Planning Act which requires consideration of
compatibility with the comprehensive plan.
d. The decision failed to consider Zoning Ordinance 1800 and Land Development
Regulations, Article I, Section 10, which requires application of the most
restrictive regulation.
e. The decision failed to consider whether the details of the subdivision plans
actually complied with the GR ordinance and other local land development
ordinances.
f. The decisions failed to consider other applicable law.
32
COUNT VI
Georgetown County Has a Statutory Mandate to Bring Zoning Ordinances and

Land Use Regulations Into Compliance with Comprehensive Plan
set forth herein.
130. Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment from this Court that Georgetown County has
a statutory mandate to bring residential zoning ordinances and land development regulations,
including the Covington Homes parcel, into conformity with the current Georgetown County
Comprehensive Plan as specifically required by Planning Act, Sections 6-29-720 and 6-29-1120.
COUNT VII
Georgetown County Has a Statutory Mandate to Consider Compliance with

Comprehensive Plan in Decision Making Processes
set forth herein.
132. Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment from this Court that Georgetown County has
a statutory mandate to bring its zoning and land development decision-making processes into
compliance with state law which requires review for compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan
as a condition of approval pursuant to Planning Act Sections 6-29-540, 6-29-720, and 6-29-1120,
and Georgetown County Planning Commission Bylaws, Article V, Section 2, and the language
of the Georgetown County Comprehensive Plan Introduction, and other applicable law.
33
COUNT VIII
APPEAL OF COUNTY COUNCIL DECISION
set forth herein.
134. In the event this court finds that County Council had authority to render the
February 14, 2023, decision on the subdivision applications, Plaintiffs appeal this decision for
the reasons set forth hereinabove.
COUNT IX
ATTORNEYS FEES FROM GEORGETOWN COUNTY
set forth herein.
136. Defendant Georgetown County acted without substantial justification with respect
to the claims set forth herein and there is no special circumstance that would make the award of
attorneys fees unjust. Citizens should not be forced to spend time and money or engage the
services of attorneys in order to obtain the county’s compliance with law.
137. S.C. Code 15-77-300 permits the award of attorneys fees in this circumstance.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court to enter judgment in
their favor as set forth herein, declare as follows that:
a. the February 14, 2023, County Council decision approving the subdivision application is
null, void and of no force or effect;
b. the Planning Commission decision of January 19, 2023, denying the subdivision
application is the final, valid and binding decision;
34
c. Georgetown County ordinances requiring approval by County Council of land
development applications conflict with state law and are void, unenforceable, and of no
force or effect;
d. Georgetown County ordinances allowing high residential density on land designated by
the Comprehensive Plan as Medium Density conflict with state law and are void,
unenforceable, and of no force or effect;
e. Georgetown County has a statutory mandate to bring zoning ordinances into compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan and to consider compliance with the comprehensive plan in
its land use decision making processes;
f. Plaintiffs are entitled to costs and attorneys fees from Defendant Georgetown County
pursuant to S.C. Code 15-77-300 ; and
g. Such other relief as the court deems just and appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Cynthia Ranck Person

Cynthia Ranck Person, Esquire (SC Bar #105126)
KEEP IT GREEN ADVOCACY, INC.

P.O. Box 1922
(843) 325-7795
(570) 971-8636
[email protected]
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

March 10, 2023
Pawleys Island, South Carolina
35
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7
Exhibit 8
Exhibit 9
CLOSE
Council Members County Administrator

District 1: Clint A. Elliott Angela Christian
District 2: Bob Anderson
District 3: Everett Carolina Clerk to Council
District 4: Lillie Jean Johnson, Vice Chair Theresa E. Floyd
District 5: Raymond L. Newton
District 6: Stella Mercado County Attorney
District 7: Louis R. Morant, Chairman Jay Watson
February 14, 2023 5:30 PM
GEORGETOWN COUNTY COUNCIL

Council Chambers, 129 Screven Street, Suite 213, Georgetown,
SC
AGENDA

1. INVOCATION
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
4. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS / REPORTS
4.a Nonprofit Spotlight - Birthright of Georgetown

4.b Request to Name County Park
4.c Clemson University Cooperative Extension Service - Recognition of 4-H/Youth
Development Contest Winners
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
6. CONSENT AGENDA
6.a Procurement #22-030, RFQu for Geotechnical Engineering Services,

Construction Materials Testing and Special Testing Services, IDIQ
6.b Procurement #22-084, Spring Gully Blight Removal and Demolition Project
6.c Procurement #22-100 Rebid, Bulk (Transport) Delivery of Ultra Low Sulfur
(ULS) Diesel Fuel
6.d Procurement #23-001, Motorola Solutions Data Extraction Services
6.e Procurement #23-007, Final Engineering Services for Wachesaw Road &
Mallory Avenue - Drainage Improvements
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7.a Ordinance No. 22-44 - An amendment to the Georgetown County

Comprehensive Plan, Natural Resources Element (NRE).
8. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
9. RESOLUTIONS / PROCLAMATIONS
10. THIRD READING OF ORDINANCES
10.a Ordinance No. 23-01 - To amend the Georgetown Estates Planned

Development located on the north side of Hwy 521 west of nine mile curve
between Indian Hut Road and Kent Road, identified as TMS No. 02-0420-002-
Exhibit 10
01-00, to decrease the commercial acreage along Hwy 521, add residential
lots along the front of the PD, and increase open space.
11. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
11.a Ordinance No. 22-44 - An amendment to the Georgetown County

Comprehensive Plan, Natural Resources Element (NRE).
12. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
12.a Ordinance No. 23-02 - Amendment of the FY2022/23 Budget Ordinance

12.b Ordinance No. 23-03 - To amend the Future Land Use (FLU) map to re-
designate 1.9 acres of a parcel, TMS# 03-0408-009-00-00, located on Choppee
Road, from High Density Residential to Commercial.
12.c Ordinance No. 23-04 - To rezone one (1) parcel on Choppee Road, totaling
approximately 1.9 acres, TMS# 03-0408-009-00-00, from General Residential to
General Commercial.
12.d Ordinance No. 23-05 - To amend the Plantation Federal Planned Development
(PD) located on the west side of Highway 17 in Pawleys Island, Tax Map
Number 04-0155-001-01-12, to add open-storage to the list of uses for Parcel
B2 located along the rear of the PD adjacent to Library Lane.
13. COUNCIL BRIEFING AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
14. REPORTS TO COUNCIL
14.a Site Plan Review-12 Unit Development on Petigru Drive, TMS 04-0204-025-03-
00
15. MINUTES
15.a Regular Council Meeting - January 10, 2023
16. DEFERRED OR PREVIOUSLY SUSPENDED ISSUES
17. LEGAL BRIEFING / EXECUTIVE SESSION
17.a Executive Session to Discuss Economic Development Projects pursuant to

S.C. Code Ann. § 30-4-70(a)(5).
18. OPEN SESSION
19. ADJOURNMENT
Item Number: 14.a AGENDA REQUEST FORM
Meeting Date: 2/14/2023 GEORGETOW N COUNTY COUNCIL
Item Type: REPORTS TO COUNCIL
DEPARTMENT: Planning / Zoning
ISSUE UNDERCONSIDERATION:
A request from Bryan Lenertz as agent for Covington Homes for site plan review of a 6 building
duplex (12 units) development located on the west side of Petigru Drive between Inkwood Court
and Ferguson Drive in Pawleys Island. TMS# 04-0204-025-03-00. Case# MAJOR2022-
00012.
CURRENT STATUS:
The site contains a total of 2.01 acres and is zoned General Residential (GR).
POINTS TO CONSIDER:
1. The property is located west of Petigru Drive approximately 35 feet south of Inkwood Drive and
350 feet north of Ferguson Drive in Pawleys Island. The site is bordered by General Commercial
to the east and General Residential to the north, west and south. Existing uses include single
family and duplexes.
2. Single family, two-family and multifamily uses are all permitted in the General Residential Zoning
District. Section 607.306 of the GR section requires a site plan review by the Planning
Commission and County Council for all two-family developments containing more than ten (10)
dwelling units with a net density of five units or more per acre. Adjacent property owner notices
were sent out and the property was advertised as required in this section of the ordinance. The
review by the Planning Commission and County Council is limited to compliance with the land use
regulations of the County as the use has already been properly designated by establishment of the
zoning district.
3. The applicant is proposing a six building development consisting of a total of 12 paired ranch
duplexes. There is an existing duplex development consisting of 6 buildings (12 units) located
directly to the north off of Inkwood Court.
4. The gross density is 5.97 units per acre and the net density is 7.74 units per acre. The net
density as shown complies with the GR zoning district density limits for two-family dwellings. The
land area for each duplex contains a minimum of 8,000 sf.
5. The proposed plan complies with the 25 foot front yard setback, as well as the 10’ side yard
setback and the 20’ rear setback. The plan indicates a pervious/impervious ratio of 45%/55%.
Total building coverage is 14% of the site.
6. The Zoning Ordinance requires two spaces per unit for a total of 24 spaces. A total of 30
spaces are provided.
Exhibit 11
7. Section 1201.9 of the Zoning Ordinance requires buffers between differing land use types. A
buffer is not required between the proposed two-family development and the existing GR zoning to
the north, west and south. The applicant is proposing a Level 1, fifteen foot streetscape buffer
along Petigru Drive. The applicant is also including a 10’ future easement for the Petigru bike/ped
plan as shown in the Georgetown County Bike Path/Primary Sidewalks and Trails Master Plan
2017-2027.
A landscape plan will need to be reviewed and approved by planning staff that meets the minimum
requirements of Article XI.
8. The site contains a total of 10 protected trees. No trees over 24” shall be removed and the
applicant will be required to retain 20 trees or 200” DBH on the site after development. The
applicant will need to provide a tree removal/replacement plan for Staff review prior to land
disturbance.
9. Stormwater will be collected in a series of catch basins and pipes that will flow to (3) stormwater
retention ponds. The stormwater ponds will be designed to control the post development runoff
rates which shall be equal to or lower than the predevelopment runoff rates and will be controlled by
an outlet structure. Please see Letter of Coordination from stormwater.
10. A Utility Coordinating Committee was conducted on January 4th. GCWSD has no issues with
serving the development; however, the applicant will be required to comply with GCWSD
extension policy. Midway Fire was contacted and commented that the fire access is acceptable.
11. The proposed project is expected to generate an additional 72 ADT’s per day; therefore, does
not meet the threshold for a Traffic Impact Analysis.
12. Access for the site will be provided by a single curb cut off of Petigru Drive. Petigru Drive is a
state maintained road so the applicant would have to apply for an SCDOT encroachment permit for
the access drive. A 26’ private R/W will be utilized in the development and two new road names
will need to be reviewed and approved by Planning Commission.
13. Signage has not yet been addressed. The Zoning Ordinance allows two signs with a total of
40 square feet for each development entrance. The height may not exceed 12 feet.
14. The property is located in flood zone X.
15. No new amenities are shown.
16. Staff recommended approval of the site plan conditional on the following:
A. Final approvals from GCWSD, Midway Fire and Georgetown County Stormwater;
B. Street name application to be submitted and approved;
C. Submittal and approval of a tree replacement plan and landscaping plan;
D. Encroachment permit from SCDOT.
17. Planning Commission held a public hearing at their January meeting. Six people spoke
opposing the project. Major issues that were presented by the public were: Stormwater and
Drainage, High Density, Traffic and Compatibility with the Comp Plan.
After significant discussion regarding high density, stormwater, drainage and compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan, a motion was made to deny the site plan. The motion to deny the site plan
passed with a vote of 4-2.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Not Applicable
OPTIONS:
1. Approve
2. Deny
3. Defer Action
4. Remand to PC for further study.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval for the site plan based on its compliance with the GR zoning
designation with the conditions as stated in number 16 above.
ATTORNEY REVIEW:
Yes
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Application and Attachments Backup Material
Location Backup Material
Zoning Backup Material
Aerial Backup Material
Current Flood Zone Backup Material
Proposed Flood Zone Backup Material
Site Plan Backup Material
Correspondence Cover Memo
Correspondence2 Cover Memo
Correspondence Backup Material
Correspondence Petigru 2 Backup Material
KIG Correspondence Petigru Backup Material
ArcGIS Web Map
ive
Dr
ru
tig
Pe
Inkwood C
ou
rt
ive
Dr
ru
tig
Pe
S-22-450
ive
e
Dr
Plac
ru
tig
es
Pe
Carn
12/21/2022, 9:00:43 AM 1:1,128

0 0.01 0.02 0.04 mi
FEMA Flood Zones - Prop. Effective 5/9/2023 Open Water Streets
X Shaded - 0.2 % Chance (500yr) County Road 0 0.01 0.03 0.06 km
VE
A X Private Road Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc.
and its affiliates, Esri Community Maps contributors, Map layer by
AE - 1% Chance (100yr) Lots with Ownership State Road Esri
AO Other
Web AppBuilder for ArcGIS
Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Inc. and its affiliates, Esri Community Maps contributors, Map layer by Esri | Imagery Managed by Adam DeMars, South Carolina State GIS Coordinator Imagery Collected by Kucera International Hosted Tile service provided by ESRI | Imagery collected in
c COPYRIGHT G3 ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, LLC. ANY USE OF THIS PLAN WHOLE OR IN PART IN ANY FORMAT WITHOUT EXPRESSED WRITTEN CONSENT, OR WITHOUT SIGNATURE AND SEAL, ARE INVALID.
UTILITY INFORMATION:
DATE
DRIVEWAY DATA:
SITE DATA - PETIGRU PLACE
DRIVEWAY INTERSECTION AT PETIGRU DR. THIS PROJECT WILL BE SERVED BY GEORGETOWN COUNTY
R = 30' WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT (GCWSD).
MUNICIPALITY GEORGETOWN COUNTY W (INSIDE) = 26'
BY
W (OUTSIDE) = 88'
PIN # 0402040250300 L (THROAT) = 76'
TREE MITIGATION NOTES:
TOTAL ACRES 2.01 AC 1. STANDARD CURB SHALL BE USED AT DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE 1. ALL LIVE OAKS 24" DBH OR GREATER SHALL NOT BE DAMAGE,
REMOVED, OR DESTROYED.
PROPERTY OWNER COVINGTON HOMES, LLC 2. STOP SIGN SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 4' FROM ANY STANDARD
2. TREE PRESERVATION REQUIRED ON SITE SHALL BE THE
4210 RIVER OAKS DR CURB, AND A MINIMUM OF 10' FROM WHERE THERE IS NO
DESCRIPTION
CURB. AMOUNT OF 10 TREES OR 100" DBH PER ACRE.
OWNER ADDRESS SUITE 5
GENERAL NOTES
MYRTLE BEACH, SC 29579
1. ALL AT GRADE UTILITIES ARE TO BE LOCATED OUT OF CURB
EXISTING ZONING GR LINE, AND ALL ABOVE GRADE UTILITIES ARE TO BE LOCATED
OUT OF THE ROADWAY.
PAIRED RANCH ON COMMON
PROPOSED USE
PROPERTY 2. NO SUCH COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS EXIST FOR THE
PROPOSED PROPERTY
REV #
PROPOSED # OF UNITS 6 BUILDINGS= 12 UNITS 3. TRASH BY PRIVATE CARRIER WITH ROLL OUT CANS AND
SCREENING
FRONT = 25', SIDE = 10', REAR=20',
SETBACKS
CORNER = 15'
ROADWAY AREA 0.25 AC
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

RY
IMPERVIOUS AREA 1.10 AC
INA
PERVIOUS AREA 0.91 AC
2 PARKING SPOTS / UNIT
REQUIRED PARKING IN
IM
TOTAL REQUIRED = 24 SPOTS EFRAIN & ASHLEY FAUST K
(5 WO
04-0204-025-08-00 0 ' P OD
UB C
PROPOSED PARKING 30 PARKING SPOTS D.B. 4126, PG.165
EL
P.S. 550, PG. 4 WILLIAM MILLER LIC OU
04-0204-025-07-00 R/W RT
GROSS DENSITY 5.97 UNIT/AC D.B. 1769, PG.307 )
PR
P.S. 550, PG. 4 YANG LIU & TAO TAO
NET DENSITY 7.74 UNIT/AC 04-0204-025-06-00
D.B. 2796, PG.14
P.S. 550, PG. 4
12" WATER OAK
JESSE, MARGARET, & IRIN MARSHALL
04-0204-025-05-00
10" WATER OAK EXISTING DITCH
D.B. 1480, PG.189
P.S. 550, PG. 4
PAWLEYS ISLAND, SC 29585

12" WATER OAK
www.G3Engineering.org
PHONE: 843.237.1001
PROPERTY LINE
ENGINEERING
& SURVEYING
EXISTING FENCE
P.O. BOX 2666

OH
EXISTING 15" RCP
X
X
X
12" LIVE OAK
P
X
OHP OHP
OH
X
X OHP
OHP
CONTROL POINT
N: 589,859.51
E: 2,568,833.24
5
P
ELEV = 18.26
BUILDING 6
OH
OHP
EXISTING UTILITIES
POND
P
KEVMILL ROAD
OH
6 4 3 0.07 AC.
2 1 15'
OHP
OLD CHARLESTON HIGHWAY, LLC.
04-0416-019-00-00
BUILDING 2
P
D.B. 775, PG.1
OH
P.S. 289, PG. 4B BUILDING 1
GEORGTOWN COUNTY, PAWLEYS ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA

EX POND
APPROX. 0.47 AC
OHP
COVINGTON HOMES, LLC
OVERALL SITE PLAN

10'
PETIGRU PLACE
26'
P
OH
14" MAPLE
12" WATER EXISTING EDGE OF
DRIP LINE PAVEMENT
OAK
7
OHP
P
BUILDING 5
OH
PREPARED FOR
54" LIVE OAK 15' TYPE "1" STREETSCAPE
BUFFER
PROPERTY LINE
P
10' FUTURE
OHP
OH
8 EASEMENT FOR
OH
10" BIRCH BOBO ROAD PETIGRU SIDEWALK
P
UPGRADES
P
OH
OHP
OH
P
P
MAIL KIOSK / MAIL CLUSTER
OH
26' LOCATION
OHP
OH
26' R30'
P
9
P
BUILDING 4
OH
POND EX. OVERHEAD UTILITIES
KEVMILL ROAD
0.05 AC. 12
)
R/W.
LIC DR
10" MAPLE
BUILDING 3
P
10
OH
UB RU
(66 ETIG
10" WATER OAK
'P
P
DRIP LINE
10" MAPLE
11
P
15' TYPE "1" STREETSCAPE
OH
BUFFER
10' R30'
36" WHITE OAK 15'
P
SCALE: 1" = 20'
OH
0 10 20 40
11" MAPLE
DESIGNED: MTG
EXISTING 15" RCP
P
36" LIVE OAK 65" LIVE OAK
OH
DRAWN: MTG
CONTROL POINT PROPERTY LINE 10' FUTURE P.U.P.S APPROVED: DCG
EASEMENT FOR PROJ. NO. 22071
16" WHITE OAK N: 589,651.98
PETIGRU SIDEWALK
1-888-721-7877 DATE: 10/28/22
KEISHA SHERMAN, E: 2,569,000.83 CALL BEFORE YOU DIG
KEISHA SHERMAN, UPGRADES
P
ELEV = 19.78
OH
VERA BROWN ET AL
VERA BROWN ET AL PALMETTO UTILITY
04-0416-020-00-00
D.B. 3153, PG.63
04-0416-020-01-00 EXISTING EDGE OF PROTECTION SERVICE
D.B. 3549, PG. 236 PAVEMENT
P.S. 121, PG. 3B
P.S. 121, PG. 3B
SHEET
P
OH
KIG Advocacy, Inc.
P.O. Box 1922
A nonprofit public interest law firm.
Cynthia Ranck Person, Esquire Email:

Chief Legal Counsel & Executive Director [email protected]
________________________________________________________________________________________
February 13, 2023
VIA EMAIL
Georgetown County Council

129 Screven Street
Georgetown, SC 29442
RE: Covington Homes, LLC

Application for Major High Density Subdivision – Petigru Place
Case No. MAJOR 2022-00012; TMS 04-0204-025-03-00
Dear County Council Members:
As we begin a new year, I want to thank you all for your service to our county. As council
members you are responsible for difficult decisions on a broad range of issues that require a great
deal of time, effort, and attention. Your dedication and commitment are very much appreciated.
The above referenced application for subdivision approval is on your agenda for February 14,
2023. This proposed high density development is located in the minority neighborhood of
Parkersville in Pawleys Island on a parcel of land owned by Covington Homes, LLC, a Myrtle
Beach developer, and designated as "medium density" by the comprehensive plan and maps.
I am writing on behalf of adjoining heirs' property landowners that include members of the
Grate, Sherman, Bryant, Brown, Dennison, and Ford families, the Pawleys Island Civic Club
(Vincent Davis, President), the Parkersville Planning & Development Alliance (Rev. Johnny
Ford, President), and other neighboring residents who have lived and owned land in this
neighborhood for generations, all of whom respectfully oppose this application and request
Council to follow the decision of Planning Commission.
Planning Commission properly denied this subdivision site plan application on the basis that it
conflicts with the comprehensive plan and is otherwise detrimental to the neighborhood. Rev.
Robert Davis made the motion to deny that was supported by a majority of the commission.
My clients' position is summarized as follows:
• Under South Carolina state law, the Planning Commission decision on land development
applications is final unless appealed to the Circuit Court. (Planning Act, Sec. 6-29-1150).
Exhibit 12
February 13, 2023
Page 2 of 6
• State law requires that zoning and land development be in accordance with the
comprehensive plan. (Planning Act, Sec. 6-29-720, 540, 1120). This high density
proposal conflicts with the comprehensive plan medium density designation.
• Georgetown County ordinances provide that when there are conflicting zoning or land
development regulations, the most restrictive applies. i.e., in this case, medium density is
more restrictive than high density. (Zon. Ord. 1800, Land Dev. Reg., Sec. 10)
• General Residential zoning is not required to be high density and by its own definition is
appropriate for medium density. (Zon. Ord. 607)
The specific details upon which these landowners, residents, and groups oppose this high density
project are as follows:
1. Georgetown County is bound by South Carolina state law.
It is axiomatic that Georgetown County may not act, legislate or make decisions in a manner
that is inconsistent with South Carolina state law or the Constitution. If council enacts
ordinances that are inconsistent with state law, those ordinances will be declared void if
challenged.
In order to avoid decisions that conflict with state law, the first step in any county decision
should be to review whether state law speaks to the issue. In this case, it does.
2. State law designates Planning Commission as decision-maker.
South Carolina Planning Act, Section 6-29-1150, specifically confers authority for land
development decisions to the Planning Commission or designated staff. Planning
Commission decisions are appealable to the Circuit Court. The Planning Act grants no
authority to County Council, a legislative body, to approve or disapprove land development
site plan applications or to review, modify, or reverse land development decisions of the
Planning Commission.
The Georgetown County Planning Commission properly denied this application after public
hearing on January 19, 2023, on the basis that it conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan and is
otherwise detrimental to the neighborhood. Under state law, that decision stands as final
unless appealed to the Circuit Court.
3. State law requires compliance with Comprehensive Plan.
The following are direct quotes from the South Carolina Planning Act on the issues of zoning
and land development regulation and decisions:
February 13, 2023
Page 3 of 6
• SC Planning Act, Section 6-29-720(B): “[Z]oning regulations must be made in

accordance with the comprehensive plan for the jurisdiction ... .”
• SC Planning Act, Section 6-29-720(A): The purpose of a zoning ordinance is to

“implement the comprehensive plan.”
• SC Planning Act, Section 6-29-540: No new development should be permitted “until

the location, character, and extent of it have been submitted to the planning
commission for review and comment as to the compatibility of the proposal with the
comprehensive plan of the community.”
• SC Planning Act, Section 6-29-1120: “[T]he regulation of land development by ...

counties ... is authorized for the following purposes, among others: ... to assure ... the
wise and timely development of new areas ... in harmony with the comprehensive
plan ... .”
The language of the Planning Act is clear and unambiguous. It is not subject to multiple
interpretations. South Carolina law plainly requires zoning and land development to be in
accordance with the comprehensive plan of the jurisdiction. The language is mandatory:
"must be" and "to assure." It is not conditional and it does not provide for exceptions.
There is nothing in the Planning Act that permits zoning or land development that is not in
accordance with the comprehensive plan. Thus, decisions that are not in accordance with the
comprehensive plan maps conflict with state law. Indeed, as has often been pointed out by
county officials, the comprehensive plan is a "guide;" however, it is a guide that is required
by state law to be followed.
4. Comprehensive Plan Designates Parcel as Medium Density
Georgetown County Council enacted the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and related
Future Land Use (FLU) Maps by Ordinance 2015-05 which specifically designates the land
at issue and surrounding parcels as “Medium Density."
Approval of high density land development that is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan
medium density designation would be contrary to state law.
5. General Residential (GR) Zoning is Compatible with Medium Density.
The GR zoning ordinance states at 607 that “[i]t is the intent of this section that the General
Residential District be established for medium-to-high density residential purposes.” There is
no requirement that a use within GR zoning be high density.
The determination of the appropriate density within the GR District depends on a number of
factors including the Comprehensive Plan FLUM designation, compliance with other
February 13, 2023
Page 4 of 6
conditions of the GR ordinance itself, compliance with all other applicable land development
regulations, and a variety of other factors that state and local law designate as relevant,
including flooding, stormwater, traffic, compatibility with the character of the neighborhood,
and impact on the community.
Georgetown County Council made the decision in 2015 to designate this parcel as medium
density which means the GR permitted use of multi-family duplex units is limited to a
maximum density of 5 units per acre.
6. Conflicts Resolved By Applying Most Restrictive Standard.
Georgetown County ordinances require that where there is a conflict between or among
zoning or land development ordinances, the most restrictive one applies. In this case, the
more restrictive medium density controls.
• Section 1800 of the Georgetown County Zoning Ordinance:
“[I]n case of conflict between this Ordinance or any part thereof, and the whole or
part of any existing or future ordinance of the County of Georgetown, the most
restrictive shall in all cases apply.”
• Section 10 of the Georgetown County Development Regulations:
“Whenever this Ordinance imposes a higher standard than that required by other
resolutions, ordinances, rules or regulations, easements, covenants or agreements,
the provisions of this Ordinance shall govern. When the provisions of any other
statute impose higher standards, the provisions of such statute shall govern.
7. Other Legitimate Bases for Denial
Regardless of the comprehensive plan violation, the county is not obligated to approve a high
density project just because it is zoned as General Residential. General Residential is
appropriate for either medium or high density and there are a multitude of factors required to
be taken into consideration in addition to the comprehensive plan designation as set forth in
the state and local land development regulations.
Some examples of those factors include traffic, flooding, infrastructure, stormwater,

incompatibility with the character of the neighborhood, tree protection, crowding, safety, and
other factors that affect public health, welfare and safety, all of which are legitimate
considerations under the law.
February 13, 2023
Page 5 of 6
8. Impact on Minority Communities
Traditional minority communities in Pawleys Island and elsewhere in Georgetown County

are experiencing attrition at alarming rates due to approval of development on former heirs’
property that conflicts with the comprehensive plan and/or does not fit into the character of
these longstanding neighborhoods.
This proposal is not affordable or workforce housing and the price is beyond the reach of
current residents. These kinds of high density projects typically displace current residents
resulting in gentrification and the loss of a longstanding traditional African American
communities along with their valuable culture and history. Once made, these decisions
cannot be undone and they set a devastating precedent that has a permanent impact on our
future.
In addition to displacement of current residents, these high density projects often cause
serious problems with flooding, stormwater and traffic which are also legitimate
considerations and valid reasons to deny a proposal.
Georgetown County appreciates the necessity of having zoning conform to the

Comprehensive Plan FLUM in the context of zoning changes by requiring a map amendment
when a proposed zoning change conflicts. Yet, the county allows existing inconsistencies to
persist throughout the county which have had a negative impact on the entire community and
have been particularly devastating to minority neighborhoods.
By knowingly allowing this inconsistency and intentionally approving land development that
is known to be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, we believe the county is exposing
itself to potential liability and the possibility of class action lawsuits by negatively impacted
members of minority and other communities.
9. Parcel and Location Not Suitable for Proposed Purpose
Section 5 of the Georgetown County Development Regulations states that:
“The Planning Commission shall not approve the subdivision of land if, from
adequate investigations conducted by all public agencies concerned, it has been
determined that in the best interest of the public the site is not suitable for platting
and development purposes of the kind proposed.”
In this case, County Council, specifically designated this parcel as “Medium Density.” By
virtue of that enactment and designation, our County Council has made the determination
that “in the best interest of the public, the site is not suitable for” high density development.
February 13, 2023
Page 6 of 6
10. Stormwater Study Results
As the President of Pawleys Island Civic Club has repeatedly pointed out, the county has
invested substantial funds to have a county-wide stormwater study conducted. We know that
it has been completed for the Waccamaw Neck, yet the county has failed to release the
results notwithstanding citizen demand.
We know that Parkersville has been designated in this study as a problem area. High density
developments such as the one proposed, in a neighborhood that is already experiencing
serious problems with stormwater and flooding, should not be considered until the results of
that study have been received, reviewed and analyzed.
For all the reasons set forth above, we respectfully request you to (a) allow the decision of the
Planning Commission to stand as final, or in the alternative, (b) deny this proposed high density
subdivision on the basis that it does not conform to our comprehensive plan and is otherwise
detrimental to the neighborhood.
Thank you for your kind attention and consideration.
Very truly yours,
Cynthia Ranck Person, Esquire

KIG Advocacy, Inc.
P.O. Box 1922
A nonprofit public interest law firm.
Cynthia Ranck Person, Esquire Email:

Chief Legal Counsel & Executive Director [email protected]
________________________________________________________________________________________
September 2, 2022
VIA EMAIL AND CERTIFIED MAIL
Elizabeth Krauss, Chairman Louis Morant, Chairman

Georgetown County Planning Commission Georgetown County Council
129 Screven Street 129 Screven Street
Georgetown, SC 29442 Georgetown, SC 29442
RE: REQUEST FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SOUTH CAROLINA PLANNING ACT
Dear Ms. Krauss & Mr. Morant:
I am writing on behalf of minority landowners in the Parkersville community of Pawleys Island,

members of the Pawleys Island Civic Club (Vincent Davis, President), the Parkersville Planning
& Development Alliance, Inc., (Rev. Johnny A. Ford, President), a nonprofit organization
formed by long-time residents of this traditional African American community for the purpose of
protecting and preserving its history, culture, and character, and to promote housing, land use,
and economic development that fits within the character and needs of the community, as well as
citizens’ groups Keep It Green, Inc., Preserve Murrells Inlet, Inc., and other landowners in the
Waccamaw Neck. These groups represent thousands of concerned citizens.
Background
Residents of the Waccamaw Neck have tried for many years to work together with our county to
bring our comprehensive planning process, zoning & land development regulations, and land use
decision-making processes into compliance with state law. Although we have developed
excellent working relationships with many county employees and officials, we have encountered
deeply-rooted resistance at the decision-making levels of our county government.
Recognizing that our county planning department is overworked and understaffed, we have
offered to provide needed resources to assist the county on a volunteer basis. Our offers have
consistently been rejected or met with no response from county officials. There seems to be an
unwillingness to consider that some longstanding policies and practices in Georgetown County
may not comply with current state law mandates.
This failure to address and correct noncompliance has resulted in land development and zoning
change decisions that have caused harm to the taxpaying citizens of this county, especially those
in minority communities.
EXHIBIT 13
Elizabeth Krauss, Chairman
Louis Morant, Chairman
September 2, 2022
Page 2 of 5
Request
As a final attempt to amicably resolve these matters, we are formally requesting the county to
comply with the mandates of the South Carolina Comprehensive Planning Enabling Act,
(hereinafter “Planning Act”), S.C. Code Ann., Section 6-29-310, et seq., and other applicable
law, as follows:
1. Immediately bring all residential zoning ordinances and land development regulations in
the Waccamaw Neck into conformity with the current Georgetown County
Comprehensive Plan as specifically required by Sections 6-29-720 and 6-29-1120 of the
Planning Act.
2. Immediately bring the decision-making processes in land development and zoning

change requests into compliance with state law which requires review for compatibility
with the Georgetown County Comprehensive Plan as a condition of approval pursuant to
Sections 6-29-540, 6-29-720, and 6-29-1120 of the Planning Act.
3. Defer any zoning or land development decisions until the above matters are brought into
compliance.
We have reviewed this matter with our Charleston legal counsel and consulted with independent
experts on South Carolina land use and zoning law. We are confident that our requests are
reasonable and consistent with the requirements of the Planning Act.
South Carolina State Law
The following are the specific provisions from the South Carolina Planning Act that support
these requests:
1. Section 6-29-720(B) provides that “[zoning] regulations must be made in accordance

with the comprehensive plan for the jurisdiction.”
2. Section 6-29-1120 authorizes and governs county land development regulations, and
states that one of the purposes of having development regulations is “to assure ... wise
and timely development ... in harmony with the comprehensive plan ... .”
3. Section 6-29-540 requires that no new development should be permitted “until the
location, character, and extent of it have been submitted to the planning commission for
review and comment as to the compatibility of the proposal with the comprehensive plan
of the community.”
4. Section 6-29-720(A) provides that the purpose of a zoning ordinance is to “implement the
comprehensive plan.”
September 2, 2022
Page 3 of 5
5. Section 6-29-530 confirms that the elements of the comprehensive plan are adopted by
county ordinance after public hearing.
6. Section 6-29-960 provides that in the case of conflicting land development regulations,
the most restrictive applies.
7. Section 6-29-340 mandates that it is the “duty” of the local planning commission to put
these processes into place for the benefit and welfare of the public which it serves.
Georgetown County Law
The following provisions of Georgetown County Ordinances and Planning Commission Bylaws
further support these requests:
1. Georgetown County Development Regulations, Section 4, states that one of the specific
purposes of the county development regulations is “to assure that development is
compatible with adopted comprehensive plan ... .”
2. Georgetown County Planning Commission Bylaws, Article V, Section 2, states that “[a]ll
zoning and development regulation amendments shall be reviewed first for conformity
with the comprehensive plan.”
3. Section 1800 of the Georgetown County Zoning Ordinance and Section 10 of the
Georgetown County Development Regulations clearly require application of the most
restrictive regulation in the case of conflicts.
Effect of Failure to Comply
There are many zoning ordinances in the Waccamaw Neck that are in direct conflict with the
comprehensive land use plan and future land use maps (FLUM) that are part of the
comprehensive plan, particularly as they relate to residential density. These conflicting
ordinances should have been brought into compliance with the comprehensive plan immediately
upon its enactment.
Instead, conflicting zoning ordinances have been permitted to exist despite their inconsistency
with the comprehensive plan. The county has repeatedly approved development pursuant to these
conflicting zoning ordinances without regard to their inconsistency with the comprehensive plan
FLUM designation and density limitations. There are many instances of high density
developments that were approved on parcels that were and continue to be designated by the
comprehensive plan as low or medium density.
Likewise, many non-conforming zoning changes have been approved as a result of the county’s
failure to consider compatibility with the comprehensive plan as a mandatory part of the
decision-making process.
September 2, 2022
Page 4 of 5
Impact on Minority Communities
In addition to the overall harm caused by the county’s failure to comply, there appears to be a
substantially greater negative impact on minority neighborhoods. Not only are conflicting zoning
ordinances more prevalent in minority communities, there appears to be a pattern of approval of
projects that conflict with the comprehensive plan or otherwise allow undesirable commercial or
other encroachment such as garbage dumps, recycling centers, storage facilities, electric
substations, transformers and the like in minority communities. This has had a devastating and
permanent detrimental effect on these traditional neighborhoods.
At best, this may be construed as discriminatory impact; at worst, discriminatory intent. Either
way, we would submit that all zoning discrepancies and decision-making processes should
immediately be brought into compliance with the comprehensive plan, and zoning and land use
decisions should be put on hold until that happens.
Discussion
Citizens routinely hear from our county officials that the comprehensive plan is “just a guide,”
that it is “not law,” it “does not need to be followed,” and “zoning takes precedence over the
comprehensive plan.”
There is no language in the South Carolina Planning Act to suggest the comprehensive land use
plan is an optional guide to be followed or not followed at the whim or convenience of county
government, nor is there language suggesting that less restrictive zoning takes precedence over
the more restrictive comprehensive plan in cases of conflict. To the contrary, it is exactly the
opposite.
The plain and unambiguous language of the Planning Act, as set forth above, requires South
Carolina counties to (1) have a regularly updated comprehensive land use plan that is enacted by
way of ordinance (ordinances are laws), (2) sets forth the parameters of land use and
development by geographic area, and (3) is implemented by zoning ordinances that are required
to be “in accordance with the comprehensive plan.” The South Carolina Supreme Court has
confirmed this interpretation on multiple occasions. It is a logical and straightforward concept
that planning commissions and departments in other coastal counties across the state understand
and follow.
It is curious that in the context of a zoning change, Georgetown County appears to appreciate the
necessity of having zoning conform to the comprehensive plan FLUM, and requires a FLUM
amendment prior to a zoning change approval when there is a conflict. Yet, the county does not
recognize the necessity for existing zoning ordinances to conform to the comprehensive plan
FLUM.
September 2, 2022
Page 5 of 5
Proposed Resolution
Our sincere intention has always been and continues to be amicable resolution of these important
issues. We are frustrated that our concerns remain unaddressed and have now reached a critical
point. More than a year ago, General Counsel for the South Carolina Environmental Law Project
issued a formal letter to the Planning Commission on behalf of citizens raising similar concerns
about the county’s noncompliance with the Planning Act and threatening mandamus. Those
issues remain unresolved. Many other land use issues involving regulatory enforcement and
compliance have been raised and remain unacknowledged and unaddressed.
We recognize the county is under-resourced and may not have personnel available to undertake
this task. As a first step toward resolution, we have drafted several proposed revisions to existing
ordinances that would bring them into compliance. This has not been an exhaustive effort, but
we would be happy to share what we have for your review and consideration.
Please advise me within the next week whether or not the county is willing to consider these
requests. I am available to meet with any representative of the county at the earliest available
date. We request the county to defer all land use decisions until provisions are in place that bring
the zoning ordinances and decision making processes into compliance.
In the event the county is not willing to engage in good faith discussion about possible avenues
of amicable resolution, we will have no choice but to consider a Declaratory Judgment action on
the issue of the county’s noncompliance, seeking all available legal and equitable relief,
including injunction, mandamus, and a claim for attorneys’ fees pursuant to S.C .Code 15-77-
300. If zoning or land development decisions are made that we believe violate state, local or
federal law, or the United States Constitution, causing harm to minority or non-minority
landowners, please be on notice that suit will be filed seeking relief, including attorneys’ fees.
Citizens should not be forced to spend time and money or engage the services of lawyers in order
to obtain the county’s compliance with law. Likewise, the county should not incur unnecessary
attorneys’ fees at the taxpayers’ expense when it could simply comply with the law.
Thank you for your attention and kind consideration. We sincerely hope to resolve these matters
by working together without the necessity of legal action, and look forward to hearing from you
promptly in this regard.
Very truly yours,
Cynthia Ranck Person, Esquire
cc: Angela Christian, County Administrator

Holly Richardson, Planning Director
John Watson, Esquire

Lawsuit Against Georgetown Co. and Covington Homes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lawsuit Against Georgetown Co. and Covington Homes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lawsuit Against Georgetown Co. and Covington Homes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the purpose of this document?

What is the purpose of this document?

What are the two ordinances that are claimed to be in conflict with state law?

What are the two ordinances that are claimed to be in conflict with state law?

ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Mar 10 11:15 AM - GEORGETOWN - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2200210

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

/s/ Cynthia Ranck Person

KEEP IT GREEN ADVOCACY, INC.

INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW

1. This Complaint involves two existing Georgetown County ordinances that

decision that was based on the two invalid ordinances.

2. This case arises in the context of a land development application requesting

(hereinafter "Comprehensive Plan"), as "Medium Density."

3. The high density subdivision application was denied by Georgetown County

decision was filed by the applicant.

4. Thereafter, on February 14, 2023, Georgetown County Council reversed the

further input, review, consideration, or decision by Planning Commission.

First Ordinance that Conflicts with State Law

5. Georgetown County GR Zoning Ordinance 607 contains provisions that require

and townhouse developments.

6. Under the South Carolina Comprehensive Planning Enabling Act, (hereinafter

the decision to approve or disapprove development plans on the Planning Commission or

Commission decisions are appealable to the Circuit Court.

body, authority to make decisions on or to hear appeals of land development plans.

conflict with state law are void.

by County Council are void as a matter of law.

February 14, 2023, and its decision is void as a matter of law.

Second Ordinance that Conflicts with State Law

(GR) and was designated by the Comprehensive Plan as "Medium Density."

14. "Medium Density" is defined by the Comprehensive Plan to allow a maximum of

five (5) residential units per acre.

units per acre.

Section 6-29-720(A) & (B).

accordance with the Comprehensive Plan is mandatory and unconditional.

accordance with the comprehensive plan."

conflict with state law are void.

void as a matter of law.

provisions of the GR ordinance and is void as a matter of law.

a. The February 14, 2023, decision by County Council to approve the

subdivision site plan application is void and of no force or effect.

b. The February 14, 2023, decision by County Council to approve the

subdivision site plan application was arbitrary, capricious, and otherwise

improper as set forth more particularly hereinafter.

subdivision application is the final decision from which no appeal to the

d. GR zoning ordinance provisions that allow high residential density on land

designated by the Comprehensive Plan as Medium Density are void as a

and of no force or effect.

LAND PARCEL AT ISSUE

forested land, including wetlands, hereinafter "Covington Homes parcel."

historically significant African American neighborhoods of Pawleys Island, Georgetown County,

South Carolina, known as Fraserville.

Planning Commission on January 19, 2023.

identified as Georgetown County Tax Map Nos. 04-0416-020-00-00, 04-0416-020-01-00, 04-

Exhibit “1,” and incorporated herein by reference.

as Georgetown County Tax Map Nos. 04-0416-018-00-00, 04-0416-018-01-00, 04-0416-018-02-

incorporated herein by reference.

32. Plaintiff, Parkersville Planning & Development Alliance, (hereinafter

infrastructure, and needs of the community.

Parkersville/Fraserville community such as garbage dumps, recycling centers, storage facilities,