## Facts

- George Campsen sought a permit from the South Carolina Coastal Council to build a privately owned restaurant within the “critical area” of Charleston Harbor.
- The restaurant was one component of a joint waterfront project involving the National Park Service and the City of Charleston, which also included an aquatic-science museum (city-owned), a tour-boat facility (National Park Service), shared parking, and a public promenade.
- Coastal Council regulations generally barred non-water-dependent structures in critical areas unless the Council found: (1) no significant environmental impact, (2) an overriding public need, and (3) no feasible alternatives.
- At the permit hearing, the Council heard evidence on all three criteria.
- On environmental impact, experts for Campsen and opponents disagreed about whether shading from the restaurant would cause significant harm to marsh vegetation and habitat.
- The Council found no significant environmental impact, even though it had previously denied a permit in another matter involving shading; the Council treated the prior matter as distinguishable on its facts.
- On overriding public need, the Council relied on testimony that the overall project would provide educational and recreational benefits (museum, public access, tour-boat use) as well as economic benefits, and that the restaurant and related features (food service, common parking, promenade) were integral to the project; evidence also indicated no other restaurant was within walking distance.
- On feasible alternatives, the Council received testimony that the restaurant had already been reduced in size by more than one-third and could not be downsized further and remain viable.
- The Council granted the permit; the 330 Concord Street Neighborhood Association challenged the decision in circuit court, which affirmed, and the Association appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Neighborhood Association had standing to obtain judicial review of the Coastal Council’s permit decision.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the Coastal Council’s findings that the restaurant would have no significant environmental impact, that an overriding public need existed, and that no feasible alternatives existed.
3. Whether the Coastal Council acted arbitrarily by reaching a result different from a prior Council decision involving shading impacts.
4. Whether the Council permissibly treated the “overriding public need” and “feasible alternatives” requirements as satisfied by evidence tied to the larger public-private project and the restaurant’s viability.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order affirming the Coastal Council’s grant of the permit.
- The court held the Neighborhood Association had standing to challenge the permit decision.
- The court held substantial evidence supported the Council’s findings on environmental impact, overriding public need, and lack of feasible alternatives.
- The court declined to reweigh conflicting expert testimony and deferred to the agency’s resolution of disputed technical evidence.
- The court held the Council was not bound to follow its prior decisions as a court would be, and the Council did not act arbitrarily because it identified distinctions from the earlier shading-related denial.

## Legal Principles

- An association may have standing to seek review of an agency permit decision when it alleges a concrete injury to its members connected to the challenged action, rather than a generalized grievance.
- On review of administrative fact-finding, a court applies the substantial-evidence standard and does not substitute its judgment for the agency’s choice between conflicting evidence, including conflicting scientific testimony.
- An administrative agency is not generally bound by stare decisis in the same way courts are, but it may not treat similar matters inconsistently without a rational basis tied to the record.
- A finding of overriding public need may rest on evidence that the project provides public benefits beyond private gain, including educational and recreational components, and that the challenged component functions as part of the overall project.
- In evaluating feasible alternatives, the agency may consider whether proposed alternatives would render the project impracticable based on record evidence, including the economic viability of the proposed design after prior reductions.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the Coastal Council’s permit for Campsen’s harbor restaurant because the Neighborhood Association had standing, but the record contained substantial evidence supporting the Council’s required findings of no significant environmental impact, an overriding public need tied to the broader public project, and no feasible alternatives, and the Council’s different outcome from a prior shading-related decision was adequately explained and not arbitrary.


330 Concord St. Neighborhood Association v. Campsen, 424 S.E.2d 538 (1992)