Court Opinion

ID: 9580759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:08:39.863848+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:30.446833
License: Public Domain

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 *656have 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.