719 S.E.2d 660
S.C.2011Background
- McMaster owns a single dwelling in Columbia near the University of South Carolina subject to the City’s zoning ordinance.
- The Ordinance defines family as either a blood/marriage relationship, or up to three unrelated persons living together as a single housekeeping unit.
- At the time, four unrelated individuals occupied the dwelling, forming a single household of undergraduate students.
- The Zoning Administrator issued a notice of violation and required occupancy to be reduced to three unrelated persons within 30 days.
- McMaster challenged the violation first to the Board of Zoning Appeals, which upheld the violation, and then to the circuit court on constitutional grounds.
- The case was appealed directly to the South Carolina Supreme Court on the state-constitutional due process challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ordinance’s three-unrelated limit violates substantive due process under the SC Constitution. | McMaster argues the definition arbitrarily deprives a cognizable property interest. | City contends the limit is rationally related to legitimate governmental interests. | Not violated; rational relation supports legitimate interests. |
| Whether the ordinance’s rational relationship to preventing mass student congestion is valid under the state constitution. | McMaster contends the limit fails to serve legitimate governmental interests. | City asserts the limit furthers public welfare in college neighborhoods. | Valid exercise of police power; rationally related to objectives. |
Key Cases Cited
- Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974) (upheld nonfundamental right to limit unrelated cohabitants; rational basis approach)
- Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977) (noted different treatment of families; emphasized privacy/personal choice limits)
- Ames Rental Prop. Ass'n v. City of Ames, 736 N.W.2d 255 (Iowa 2007) (recognizes mass student congestion as governmental objective in college towns)
- Dinan v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 220 Conn. 61 (1991) (occupancy limitations sustained as rationally related to community interests)
- Harbit v. City of Charleston, 382 S.C. 383 (Ct.App.2009) (zoning decisions may be upheld when reasonably related to protecting residential character)
- Denene, Inc. v. City of Charleston, 359 S.C. 85 (2004) (substantive due process requires showing arbitrary deprivation of property interest)