Opinion

Neal v. Brown

  • 374 S.C. 641
  • 649 S.E.2d 164
  • 2007 S.C. App. LEXIS 152
Court
Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Filed
Jul 13, 2007
Status
Published
Author
Goolsby
On the bench
Beatty, Williams, Goolsby
Cited by
7 cases

The opinion

GOOLSBY, J.

(dissenting):

I respectfully dissent and would uphold, as did the circuit court, the reversal by the Appellate Panel of the order of the Administrative Law Court that affirmed the issuance by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management of a dock permit to the respondent David Neal. The relevant part of the regulation at issue provides, “For lots platted and recorded after May 23, 1993, before a dock will be permitted, a lot must *656 have 75 feet of water frontage along the marsh edge. 7 S.C.Code Ann. Regs. 30-12(A)(2)(o) (Supp.2001). Inasmuch as Neal possesses only five feet of frontage and platted and recorded his lot in 1997, the plain language of the regulation applies and serves to proscribe issuance of the dock permit that he seeks.

. As the majority opinion points out, this regulation has been amended several times. See supra note 2.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.