Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
YOU ARE HEREBY summoned and required to answer the Notice of Appeal in this action, of
which a copy is herewith served upon you, and to serve a copy of your response on the subscribers at their
offices, P.O. Box 1804, Greenville, South Carolina, 29602, within thirty (30) days after the service hereof,
exclusive of the day of such service.
Respectfully submitted,
Commission, and appealing Defendant’s decision to revoke its prior approval of Plaintiff’s
preliminary subdivision plan, would respectfully show unto this Court as follows:
PARTIES
under the laws of the State of South Carolina and is the developer of Ethan Richard Estates, the
an appointed local planning commission as defined in South Carolina Code Section 6-29-310, also
known as the South Carolina Local Government Comprehensive Planning Enabling Act of 1994,
3. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this appeal
pursuant to South Carolina Code Section 6-29-1150 and Article 1, Section 6 of the Greenville
1
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Sep 21 6:00 PM - GREENVILLE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2304891
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
5. On April 27, 2018, Niemitalo submitted its application for preliminary plan
6. No variances or special exceptions were required for the preliminary plan to comply
determined it complied with the applicable regulations, and recommended to the Planning
8. At its meeting on June 27, 2018, the Planning Commission heard public comments
against and in favor of the application, including concerns about the subdivision’s compatibility
with surrounding land use density under Section 3.1 of the Greenville County Land Development
plan as recommended by the SAC. A true and correct copy of the approval letter dated July 2, 2018
10. The approval letter provides that “[t]he approval of this plan is your assurance that
the Final Plat of your subdivision will be approved when the required improvements have been
installed in accordance with the Greenville County Land Development Regulations.” See Exhibit
A.
2
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Sep 21 6:00 PM - GREENVILLE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2304891
11. In good faith reliance upon that assurance, Niemitalo proceeded with engineering
design for Ethan Richard Estates and incurred significant obligations in preparing the project for
12. At a regular meeting of the Greenville County Council on July 17, 2018,
Councilman Joe Dill made a motion for Council to request that the Planning Commission
13. Neither Niemitalo nor the lead engineer on the project received notice that the
14. A request was then submitted to the Planning Commission on behalf of the County
Council for reconsideration of its approval of the preliminary plat for Ethan Richard Estates.
15. Neither Niemitalo nor the lead engineer on the project received notice that the
matter was being sent back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration.
16. On July 25, 2018 at approximately 3:30 P.M., the lead engineer for Ethan Richard
Estates received an e-mail from a county administrator advising him that the Planning Commission
would be reconsidering its prior approval of the application at a meeting in one hour. A true and
17. Neither Niemitalo nor the lead engineer on the project were able to attend the
18. At the July 25th meeting, the SAC recommended again that the application be
19. After public comment and discussion, during which no new information was
presented that was not discussed at the prior meeting, the Planning Commission voted 5-4 to
3
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Sep 21 6:00 PM - GREENVILLE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2304891
20. A letter notifying Niemitalo of the Planning Commission’s decision, including the
grounds for the decision, was sent on August 22, 2018 after request by Plaintiff’s counsel. A true
21. The reason stated for denial is “LDR Section 3.1 – compatibility with surrounding
Due Process
22. The Plaintiff hereby restates each and every allegation contained in the preceding
23. The Greenville County Land Development Regulations provide that the Planning
Commission has final decision-making authority to approve site-specific development plans, such
24. The Planning Commission is required to approve applications that comply with
26. The SAC and Planning Commission determined that the application met the
requirements of the LDR, including Section 3.1, and granted conditional approval.
27. The conditional approval granted by the Planning Commission conferred upon
Niemitalo a vested right in completing the development under the terms and conditions of the
28. Niemitalo reasonably relied on the Planning Commission’s approval as the final
decision of the County and incurred significant expenses in further completion of the development.
4
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Sep 21 6:00 PM - GREENVILLE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2304891
29. The Planning Commission’s purported reconsideration and revocation of its prior
approval of Plaintiff’s application was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, and beyond its lawfully
delegated authority.
30. Further, the Planning Commission’s failure to provide the Plaintiff with reasonable
notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard on a matter that directly affects his property rights
31. As a result of the Planning Commission’s denial of Niemitalo’s basic due process
rights, Niemitalo will suffer significant financial damages, including, but not limited to, lost profits
32. The Plaintiff is entitled to an order reinstating the Commission’s original approval
and prohibiting the Planning Commission from further unlawful interference with its development.
33. The Plaintiff is also entitled to a judgment against the Planning Commission for
34. The Plaintiff hereby restates each and every allegation contained in the preceding
35. S.C. Code § 6-29-1150 provides that a property owner whose land is the subject of
a decision of the Planning Commission may file a request for pre-litigation mediation with a notice
of appeal.
36. The Planning Commission’s attempt to revoke their prior approval of the Plaintiff’s
1150.
5
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Sep 21 6:00 PM - GREENVILLE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2304891
37. The Plaintiff hereby requests pre-litigation mediation in accordance with the
a. that the Court issue an order reversing the decision of the Greenville County
interference;
d. that the Court order the parties to conduct pre-litigation mediation in accordance
e. for such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
s/ Anna L. Bullington________________
M. Stokely Holder (SC Bar #73892)
Anna L. Bullington (SC Bar # 102503)
P.O. Box 1804
Greenville, SC 29602
(864) 335-8808
(864) 248-4090 (fax)
sholder@hplplaw.com
abullington@hplplaw.com
Attorneys for Niemitalo, Inc.
September 21, 2018
Greenville, SC