The North Carolina Court of Appeals has dismissed an appeal from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) regarding a third-party hearing request related to coastal management permits. The decision affects property owners in coastal areas and highlights the complexities of environmental regulations.
The case, known as In re: Final Decision Denying Third Party Hearing Request CMT24-14, was filed on October 21, 2026, under docket number 25-1164. The appeal arose from a decision made by Judge Jason C. Disbrow in Carteret County Superior Court on July 28, 2025. The court ruled that the appeal was interlocutory, meaning it did not resolve the entire case and therefore could not be immediately appealed.
Background
The dispute involves William Judson Ready, IV, Ph.D., who is the co-owner of a property located at 219 Sea Trace Lane in Newport, North Carolina. Ready challenged two permits issued under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) that allowed neighboring property owners to construct bulkheads. In 2019, a permit authorized a sixty-five-foot bulkhead, but the neighboring owner built a seventy-five-foot bulkhead, resulting in significant shoreline loss for Ready's property.
In addition to this, the DEQ authorized a sixteen-foot wingwall extension under a second permit. Ready filed a Third-Party Hearing Request to contest both permits, claiming that the decisions were contrary to statutory regulations. The Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) staff found that Ready met some criteria for a contested case but recommended denying the request, stating the issues were frivolous. The CRC chair ultimately dismissed the request, leading Ready to appeal to the superior court.
The Ruling
The Carteret County Superior Court ruled in favor of Ready, allowing him to file a contested case petition regarding both CAMA permits. The DEQ then appealed this decision to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. However, the appellate court found that the appeal was interlocutory. Judge John Tyson stated, "Respondent’s appeal is interlocutory. Respondent has not asserted a substantial right, which will be lost without immediate appeal."
The court emphasized that generally, there is no right to appeal interlocutory orders unless specific conditions are met. In this case, the court noted that the superior court did not certify that there was no just reason to delay the appeal, which is a requirement for such appeals. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, stating, "In the exercise of our discretion, we dismiss Respondent’s appeal as interlocutory. It is so ordered." Judges Hampson and Stading concurred with the decision.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for property owners and environmental management in North Carolina. It underscores the challenges faced by individuals seeking to contest decisions made by regulatory bodies like the DEQ. The dismissal of the appeal means that Ready's request for a contested case hearing will proceed, allowing him to challenge the permits in question.
The ruling also highlights the importance of understanding the procedural aspects of appeals in environmental law. By classifying the appeal as interlocutory, the court has reinforced the principle that not all decisions can be immediately appealed, which can delay the resolution of disputes. This decision may encourage other property owners in similar situations to pursue their rights under CAMA and seek contested case hearings, potentially leading to more scrutiny of coastal management decisions.
What's Next
As the case moves forward, Ready will have the opportunity to file a contested case petition with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The DEQ may still have options to contest the superior court's decision in future proceedings, but for now, the focus will shift to the contested case process. Details regarding any potential further appeals or related cases were not available in the court filing.