South Carolina Coastal Council v. Vogel
| Decision Date | 13 April 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 0952,0952 |
| Citation | 292 S.C. 449,357 S.E.2d 187 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL, A State Agency, Appellant, v. Daniel A. VOGEL, Jr., and Grace A. Vogel, Respondents. . Heard |
General Counsel C.C. Harness, III, S.C. Coastal Council, Charleston, and Robert J. Moran, Jr., Murrells Inlet, for appellant.
James B. Van Osdell and Cynthia Graham Howe, Van Osdell, Lester, Stewart, McCutchen & Brittain, P.A., Myrtle Beach, for respondents.
The South Carolina Coastal Council (Council) commenced this action for a mandatory injunction to require Daniel A. and Grace A. Vogel to remove a deck they had constructed without a permit over a primary sand dune at their Myrtle Beach home. The circuit court found the Council estopped to require removal because its agent had represented to the Vogels that no permit was required. The Council appeals. We reverse and remand.
The Vogels purchased their oceanfront home in May of 1980 and began extensive renovations. In the winter of 1980-81 a severe storm completely destroyed an existing deck behind the landward side of a primary sand dune on their property. The Vogels removed the destroyed deck and built a set of steps for beach access. In the summer of 1981 the City of Myrtle Beach bulldozed sand up to the primary dune as part of a beach renourishment project. When the bulldozer operator pushed the beach steps into the Vogel's yard at Mr. Vogel's request, he uncovered lumber footings on the seaward side of the dune which the Vogels claim are from a pre-existing deck.
In August of 1982 Mr. Vogel began inquiries into rebuilding a deck on his property. He testified he contacted the City of Myrtle Beach, who referred him to the Council in Charleston. The Charleston office then referred him to Ken Hance, a planner for the Council in Myrtle Beach. Mrs. Vogel testified Mr. Hance visited the property several days later and they discussed the procedure for building the deck. She testified she showed him where the deck had been and told him they wished to replace it. According to Mrs. Vogel, Mr. Hance told her they would need a permit to move the deck, but that if the deck was put back in its original location, no permit would be required. She also testified he saw the previously uncovered footings on the seaward side of the dune. Mr. Vogel testified he spoke with Mr. Hance in February or March of 1983, and asked then if he could move the location of the deck. He also testified that Mr. Hance told him they could put the deck back in its original location, but would have to obtain a permit if the deck were moved.
Mr. Hance testified his contact with the Vogels was purely to establish the "critical area line" on the oceanfront of their lot, or the area of the Council's permitting jurisdiction. He testified he did not remember being told they intended to build a deck on the sand dune, and did not tell them they could do so without a permit. He testified he had never told anyone they could do this, since "[p]art of my job is to tell people that is one thing they would need a permit for."
The Council sent the Vogels a letter on September 17, 1982, establishing the boundary of their jurisdiction as shown on a drawing attached to the letter. The letter stated that The Vogels deny receiving this letter. During one weekend in January 1984 they constructed a deck which extended from the landward side of the primary dune over the dune onto the seaward side on the same location as the previously uncovered pilings or footings.
The Council notified the Vogels in letters of February 3, 1984 and April 23, 1984 that the unauthorized construction of the deck in the critical area of the primary oceanfront sand dune was a violation of the Coastal Zone Management Act and must be removed. Upon the Vogel's refusal to remove the deck, the Council filed suit on October 3, 1984 seeking a mandatory injunction to remove the structure and restore the area. The Vogels claimed equitable estoppel and res judicata barred the Council's claim. 1
The circuit court, in an order filed March 26, 1986, determined that res judicata did not apply. The court found, however, that the Vogels had relied on Mr. Hance's representations that a permit would not be necessary if they built the deck on the old deck location. The order estopped the Council from removing the structure.
The Council argues that a state agency cannot be estopped from the legitimate exercise of its police power because of an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bishop v. City of Columbia
...or statements of its officers or agents which have been relied on by a third party to his detriment." S.C. Coastal Council v. Vogel, 292 S.C. 449, 453, 357 S.E.2d 187, 189 (Ct. App. 1987).The City cites to a number of cases, arguing that they indicate Retirees could not rely upon the repres......
-
Bishop v. City of Columbia
...or statements of its officers or agents which have been relied on by a third party to his detriment.” S.C. Coastal Council v. Vogel, 292 S.C. 449, 453, 357 S.E.2d 187, 189 (Ct.App.1987). The City cites to a number of cases, arguing that they indicate Retirees could not rely upon the represe......
-
State v. Peake
...or statements of its officers or agents which have been relied on by a third party to his detriment." S.C. Coastal Council v. Vogel, 292 S.C. 449, 453, 357 S.E.2d 187, 189 (Ct.App.1987); see McDaniel v. S.C. Dept. of Pub. Safety, 325 S.C. 405, 411, 481 S.E.2d 155, 158 (Ct.App.1996) (probati......
-
Morgan v. S.C. Budget & Control Bd.
...of Adjustment of City of Rock Hill, 360 S.C. 301, 305-06, 599 S.E.2d 617, 619 (Ct.App. 2004) (citing S.C. Coastal Council v. Vogel, 292 S.C. 449, 453, 357 S.E.2d 187, 189 (Ct. App.1987)). However, estoppel is not appropriate where a government official or employee with limited authority err......