Kiawah Development Partners, II v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

766 S.E.2d 707 (2014)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Kiawah Development Partners, II v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

South Carolina Supreme Court
766 S.E.2d 707 (2014)

DC

Facts

Captain Sam’s Spit (the spit), an undeveloped sandy inlet, extended from the western tip of Kiawah Island off the South Carolina’s coast. The spit’s narrow neck extended from the island into a bulbous end that contained a maritime forest. Historically, spits had formed, eroded, and reformed at least twice in the same location. Although the spit as a whole was growing, the western portion extending along the Kiawah River was eroding. In 1999, the state established a setback line that permitted the spit’s owner, Kiawah Development Partners (the developer) (plaintiff), to develop the spit. In 2005, the town of Kiawah Island and the developer entered an agreement for a housing development on the spit. In an effort to stop erosion and facilitate development, the developer sought a permit to construct a combination bulkhead and articulated concrete-block revetment (the project) starting at a county park and extending along the shoreline for 2,783 feet. The Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) (defendant) denied the permit for all of the project area except 250 feet of shoreline adjacent to the county park, finding that the project would have long-range, cumulative effects on a sensitive area and a negative effect on rare and endangered species. The developer appealed DHEC’s decision. The administrative-law court (ALC) found that the permit should have been issued for the entire project area because that the project’s impact on public access would be insubstantial and therefore not prohibited by DHEC regulation 30-12(C), a prohibition on bulkheads and revetments that adversely affect public access unless no feasible alternative exists. The ALC also determined that that no feasible alternative to the project existed under 30-12(C)’s exception. The DHEC appealed the ALC’s decision.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Hearn, J.)

Dissent (Toal, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership