The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed a Georgetown County zoning decision in a case involving restaurant parking rights at the Marlin Quay Planned Development. The court ruled Tuesday in favor of Georgetown County, Georgetown County Council, and Councilmember Steve Goggans in their dispute with Gulfstream Café, Inc.
Gulfstream Café challenged the county's adoption of an ordinance allowing construction of a new restaurant in the planned development, arguing the decision violated the company's easement rights over a shared parking lot. The restaurant owner also raised inverse condemnation claims against the county officials.
The case centers on parking arrangements established when Georgetown County Council created the Marlin Quay Planned Development in 1982. The original development included two buildings: the Gulfstream Café and the Marlin Quay Marina, which housed both a restaurant and marina store serving a 60-slip marina.
Under the original arrangement, Marlin Quay Marina Corporation owned the marina building and controlled 62 parking spaces in the development's parking lot. Gulfstream owned 17 parking spaces of its own. In 1986, Marlin Quay Marina Corporation granted Gulfstream an easement providing ingress and egress rights to the parking lot and nonexclusive use of the 62 marina-controlled spaces.
The 1986 easement agreement specified that both parties would have "joint and non-exclusive use of the area covered by this easement," establishing a shared parking arrangement between the two businesses in the planned development.
The legal dispute arose when Georgetown County Council approved an ordinance permitting construction of an additional restaurant within the Marlin Quay Planned Development. Gulfstream Café argued this approval was unlawful and would infringe upon its established easement rights over the shared parking area.
Gulfstream filed suit against Georgetown County, the county council, and Councilmember Steve Goggans in both his individual and official capacities. The restaurant company's legal challenge included claims that the zoning ordinance was invalid and allegations of inverse condemnation against the government defendants.
Inverse condemnation claims typically arise when property owners argue government actions have effectively taken their property rights without just compensation, even when no formal condemnation proceeding has occurred. In this case, Gulfstream appeared to argue that allowing additional restaurant construction would diminish the value of its parking easement rights.
The case was heard in Georgetown County circuit court before Judge R. Kirk Griffin, who ruled in favor of all respondents on every claim raised by Gulfstream Café. The restaurant company appealed the adverse ruling to the South Carolina Supreme Court.
The state's highest court heard oral arguments in the case on Nov. 13, 2024. Justice James authored the supreme court opinion, which was filed Oct. 29, 2025, under opinion number 28303.
The supreme court's decision affirms the circuit court's ruling across all issues, rejecting Gulfstream's challenges to the county's zoning authority and dismissing the inverse condemnation claims against the government officials.
Gulfstream Café was represented by Sean Matthew Foerster of Rogers Townsend LLC in Columbia, along with Simon H. Bloom, Andrea J. Pearson, and Adam D. Nugent, all of Bloom Parham LLC in Atlanta, Georgia. The respondents were represented by Henrietta U. Golding of Burr & Forman LLP in Myrtle Beach.
The case illustrates the complex legal issues that can arise in planned developments where multiple businesses share common facilities like parking areas. The ruling appears to strengthen local government authority in zoning decisions involving planned developments, even when existing businesses claim new development will impact their established property rights.
The decision also demonstrates the challenges property owners face when bringing inverse condemnation claims against government zoning decisions. Such claims require plaintiffs to prove government actions have effectively taken their property rights, a high legal standard that was not met in this case according to both the trial and appellate courts.
For Georgetown County, the ruling validates its planning and zoning authority over the Marlin Quay development and allows the approved restaurant construction to proceed. The decision provides important precedent for how South Carolina courts will evaluate disputes between existing businesses and new development in planned communities.
The case highlights the importance of carefully drafted easement agreements in commercial developments, as the 1986 easement language establishing "joint and non-exclusive use" appears to have been insufficient to prevent additional development that might impact parking availability.
The supreme court's affirmance represents the final resolution of this zoning dispute, as the case has concluded at South Carolina's highest appellate level.