This appeal consolidates for review five actions challenging the validity of various annexations to the City of Charleston. In each case the Circuit Court found the ordinance ratifying annexation invalid. We reverse.
Each annexation was achieved pursuant to S. C. Code Ann. § 5-3-150 (1976) which provides for annexation of an area “contiguous” to a city by petition of its freeholders. 1 Each area annexed shares some common boundary with the City of Charleston. The Circuit Court, however, found the properties did not qualify as “contiguous” because they did not have all the qualifications of unity, a substantial physical touching, a common boundary, *411 ready access, and contribution to the homogeneity, unity, and compactness of the city. The Circuit Court refused to allow that marshland or water could supply contiguity between the parcels of highland in the annexed areas and the city.
Appellants contend the Circuit Court erred by imposing additional qualifications for annexation beyond the statutory requirement of mere contiguity specified in § 5-3-150. We agree.
Annexation of land to a municipal corporation is a legislative function with which the courts rarely interfere.
Hollingsworth v. City of Greenville, 241
S. C. 378,
We further hold that contiguity is not destroyed by water or marshland within either the annexing municipality’s existing boundaries or those of the property to be annexed merely because it separates the parcels of highland involved.
See Tovey v. City of Charleston,
237 S. C. 475,
We need not address appellants’ remaining exceptions in view of this disposition. Accordingly, the orders of the Circuit Court are
Reversed.
Notes
Section 5-3-150(1) allows annexation by petition of 75% of the freeholders owning at least 75% of the assessed value of the property to be annexed.
