Kurschner v. City of Camden Planning Commission
Supreme Court of South Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Toal
This is an appeal from Respondent City of Camden Planning Commission’s (“the Commission”) denial of Appellants Robert and Sharon Kurschner’s (“the Kurschners”) application to subdivide their property. We affirm.
Factual/Procedural Background
In 1989, the Kurschners purchased a 5.49 acre tract of land in the City of Camden known as Sarsfield, the former residence of Mary Boykin Chestnut. 1 In 2004, the Kurschners filed an application with the Commission seeking approval to subdivide the property into eight lots. Prior to the hearing, the Kurschners requested that a member of the Commission who…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroySupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Townes Associates, Ltd. v. City of GreenvilleSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1976
- Byerly Ex Rel. Estate of Byerly v. ConnorSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1992
- Waters v. South Carolina Land Resources Conservation CommissionSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1996
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Town of Hollywood v. FloydSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2013
- Harbit v. City of CharlestonCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2009
- South Carolina Coastal Conservation League v. South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental ControlCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2008
- State v. NeumanSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2009
- South Carolina Ambulatory Surgery Center Ass'n v. South Carolina Workers' Compensation CommissionSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2010
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.