Dunes West Golf Club, LLC v. Town of Mount Pleasant
401 S.C. 280
S.C.2013Background
- Dunes West Golf Club, LLC challenges Mount Pleasant's summary judgment in a zoning takings case involving the 256-acre Golf Course Property.
- Town created CRO, prohibiting residential development on all golf course properties; DWPD previously allowed flexible uses.
- Appellant sought to designate developable portions for homes, requiring wetlands filling and easement relocations; no precise plan identified.
- Town rezoned the Golf Course Property to CRO in 2006 as part of a uniform, town-wide golf-course open-space strategy.
- Appellant withdrew 2008 rezoning petition and noncontiguous 16.48–25+ acre proposals later denied in 2009; suit followed.
- Circuit court granted summary judgment for Town; on appeal, court upheld as to equal protection, substantive due process, and takings claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal protection challenge viability | Dunes West claims disparate treatment vs Snee Farm lacks rational basis. | Town showed rational distinctions; petition differences justify CRO treatment. | Summary judgment affirmed; rational basis present; petitions not similarly situated. |
| Facial substantive due process validity | CRO is arbitrary and capricious; should be substantially advances standard. | CRO serves legitimate goals and remains rationally related to public welfare. | CRO not arbitrary; ordinance substantially advances legitimate purposes; S.J. affirmed. |
| As-applied substantive due process and property interest | Appellant possessed vested rights or title-based rights triggering due process protection. | No cognizable property interest in pre-existing PD zoning; rezoning valid. | No protected property interest; due process claims fail; boundary rationale upheld. |
| Takings—categorical (Lucas) taking | Downzoning eliminates all economically beneficial use of developable land. | CRO allows multiple uses; not a per se taking. | No categorical taking; CRO permits beneficial uses; Lucas claim rejected. |
| Takings—Penn Central balancing | Economic impact and investment-backed expectations support a taking. | Regulation is not a taking; benefits public welfare and preserves open space. | No regulatory taking; Penn Central factors weigh against compensation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (Sup. Ct. 2005) (substantive due process test can include substantial advancement analysis)
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (Sup. Ct. 1992) (categorical taking when all economically beneficial use is denied)
- Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (Sup. Ct. 1978) (three-factor Penn Central test for regulatory takings)
- Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (Sup. Ct. 2002) (no rigid taking rules; careful weighing of circumstances)
- Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (Sup. Ct. 1954) (public welfare justifies zoning and regulatory actions)
- Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass’n v. Duncan, 480 U.S. 470 (Sup. Ct. 1987) (value diminution not by itself a taking; context matters)