Vannata v. Town of Sullivan's Island, 2026-MO-014

Background

The Vannattas challenged Sullivan's Island Zoning Ordinance section 21-75(B)(2), which bars docks in part of the RC-2 district and limits dock length with an exception for certain wide creeks. 1
Their proposed dock would have been 486 feet long to reach a 62-foot-wide creek, and the Board of Zoning Appeals denied the dock permit. 2
The Vannattas argued the ordinance was illegal reverse spot zoning, violated substantive due process, and denied equal protection. 3
They alternatively sought a variance from the ordinance's restrictions after buying the property in 2014, years after the ordinance's 2004 enactment. 4
The Town's comprehensive plan and zoning findings emphasized preserving the RC areas in a natural state for ecology, safety, recreation, and aesthetics. 5
The circuit court affirmed the BZA, and the supreme court likewise affirmed. 6

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Reverse spot zoning 7	Ordinance singled out their property for dock prohibition.	Restriction applied broadly and was an affirmative legislative act.	No reverse spot zoning; ordinance valid. 8
Substantive due process 9	Dock restrictions were arbitrary and unreasonable.	Restrictions reasonably furthered legitimate governmental interests.	No substantive due process violation. 10
Equal protection 11	Ordinance irrationally treated their property differently.	Rational basis existed for the classification.	No equal protection violation. 12
Variance denial 13	BZA wrongly denied hardship variance.	No unnecessary hardship or entitlement to variance.	Variance properly denied. 14

Key Cases Cited

Ani Creation, Inc. v. City of Myrtle Beach Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 440 S.C. 266, 890 S.E.2d 748 (S.C. 2023) (municipal ordinances are presumed constitutional; reverse spot zoning and rational-basis principles 15)
McMaster v. Columbia Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 395 S.C. 499, 719 S.E.2d 660 (S.C. 2011) (ordinance invalidity must be shown clearly and legislation must bear a reasonable relation to legitimate interests 16)
First Sav. Bank v. McLean, 314 S.C. 361, 444 S.E.2d 513 (S.C. 1994) (failure to cite authority may constitute abandonment on appeal 17)
Knowles v. City of Aiken, 305 S.C. 219, 407 S.E.2d 639 (S.C. 1991) (spot-zoning review considers comprehensive plan and common welfare 18)
Dunes W. Golf Club, LLC v. Town of Mount Pleasant, 401 S.C. 280, 737 S.E.2d 601 (S.C. 2013) (substantive due process requires a reasonable relationship to legitimate governmental interests 19)
Harbit v. City of Charleston, 382 S.C. 383, 675 S.E.2d 776 (Ct. App. 2009) (due process is not denied merely because the owner cannot make the most beneficial use 20)
Bibco Corp. v. City of Sumter, 332 S.C. 45, 504 S.E.2d 112 (S.C. 1998) (rational-basis equal-protection review and municipal aesthetics as a legitimate interest 21)
Rest. Row Assocs. v. Horry County, 335 S.C. 209, 516 S.E.2d 442 (S.C. 1999) (variance standards and unnecessary-hardship factors 22)
Rushing v. City of Greenville, 265 S.C. 285, 217 S.E.2d 797 (S.C. 1975) (courts defer where the municipality's action is fairly debatable 23)
Arkay, LLC v. City of Charleston, 418 S.C. 86, 791 S.E.2d 305 (Ct. App. 2016) (appellate courts defer to local zoning interpretation decisions 24)