South Carolina Development Approvals: Why the Record and Restrictive Covenants Matter

The dispute

Verizon sought approval to construct a cell tower on property in Aiken County. Neighboring owners David Lambert and Julia Beamish opposed the application, arguing that restrictive covenants for the Bluffwood East equestrian community prohibited commercial activity and that the proposal did not satisfy county requirements.

Whether those covenants applied to the proposed tower site was disputed. After continuing the matter to gather additional information, the planning commission approved the application.

The circuit court upheld that decision. The Court of Appeals reversed. Read the official opinion.

Why the record mattered

The minutes of the decisive commission meeting summarized statements by attorneys and other participants, but they did not explain the commission’s reasoning. The supplied transcript was incomplete and omitted its deliberations.

Without that information, the appellate court could not adequately review whether the approval was supported by the evidence or whether the commission had properly applied the county’s ordinances, including provisions addressing the community’s character and the proposed facility’s effects.

The distinction is important: the court did not hold that every planning commission approval requires a separate formal order containing written findings and conclusions. It expressly distinguished planning commissions from zoning boards of appeals, which operate under different statutory requirements. The problem was that the available record did not sufficiently explain the decision. Opinion, pages 7–11.

Restrictive covenants deserve early attention

The Court of Appeals also rejected the circuit court’s conclusion that the neighboring owners had abandoned their covenant argument.

South Carolina Code § 6-29-1145(B) addresses a planning agency’s actual notice of a restrictive covenant that conflicts with the proposed permitted activity. When its requirements apply, the statute bars issuance unless the applicant supplies confirmation of a qualifying release. The statute also contains specific definitions and exclusions; it is not a blanket rule covering every building restriction or permit. S.C. Code § 6-29-1145.

What owners and developers can do

For developers, the practical lesson is to prepare for review while pursuing approval. Identify the applicable ordinance criteria, submit evidence addressing them, investigate covenant questions early, and seek a clear record explaining the commission’s decision and any conditions.

For neighboring owners, specific evidence matters. Identify the ordinance provisions at issue, provide relevant recorded documents, explain how they affect the proposal, and ensure those materials become part of the record.

For both sides, the administrative hearing deserves careful preparation. A clear record helps the commission make an informed decision and gives a reviewing court something concrete to evaluate. An approval that leaves important questions unexplained can lead to additional proceedings, expense, and uncertainty.

Lambert illustrates that risk.