The S.C. Court of Appeals has released an unpublished opinion concerning Greenville County’s “process for reviewing requests from citizens to amend the text of the county’s zoning ordinance.” The Altamont Road Safety Alliance vs. Greenville County Board of Zoning Appeals Case No. 2024-001138, Slip Op. at 1 (Ct. App. July 22, 2026). It is sure to be the talk of all upstate dinner parties for the foreseeable future.

In this case, the plaintiffs contended they were entitled to a public hearing upon submitting a request to amend parts of the County’s zoning ordinance. Id. The County’s zoning procedure does not require that, however. Instead the ordinance states that citizen-initiated proposals must first be presented to the Planning and Development Committee of Greenville County Council. Id. (citing Section 3:2.3 of the Greenville County Zoning Ordinance).

Based upon that ordinance, the county zoning administrator denied the plaintiffs’ request to have a public hearing on their (other) request to rezone the area around Altamont Road. The plaintiffs ultimately appealed this decision all the way to the Court of Appeals.

The result of the appeal largely hinged on the Court’s simple application of S.C. Code § 6-29-760(A) which requires, inter alia, that (1) a public hearing be held before zoning regulations are passed or amended; and (2) that amendments to zoning ordinances be submitted to the respective planning commission “for review and recommendation” before any change to the ordinance may be made. Id. at 3.

The Court of Appeals held that S.C. Code § 6-29-760(A) did not apply to citizen-initiated proposals to modify zoning ordinances because “all the
statute requires is a public hearing before zoning regulations are passed or amended” and “[t]he statute is satisfied so long as there is a public hearing before a zoning regulation is enacted or amended.” Id. at 3.

The Court further held that a planning commission’s required review and recommendation of a proposed zoning regulation has to occur before the changes are “actually made,” but the statute does not mandate when in the process that has to occur. Id.

Finally, the Court held that the County’s zoning procedure was not “zoning by referendum” as barred by the S.C. Supreme Court’s opinion in I’On,
L.L.C. v. Mount Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 412, (2000), and that the zoning administrator’s interpretation was not inconsistent with other provisions of the ordinance. Id. at 4.

All in all, this opinion is far from a game changer, but it may be useful to those in the future looking for a case to support one of the basic propositions it addresses.