ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter is before the Administrative Law Court (ALC or
Court) pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§ 28-11-10, et seq. (1991
& Supp. 2004) and 49 C.F.R. §§ 24.1, et seq., upon
Petitioner’s request for a contested case hearing to review a decision of
Respondent South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) denying
relocation assistance benefits. After notice to the parties, a contested case
hearing on the merits was held on September 20, 2005, at the offices of the
Court in Columbia, South Carolina.
FINDINGS
OF FACT
Having
observed the witnesses and exhibits presented at the hearing and taking into
consideration the burden of persuasion and the credibility of the witnesses, I
make the following findings of fact by a preponderance of evidence:
1. Notice
of the date, time, place, and subject matter of the hearing was provided to all
parties in a timely manner.
2. Angus
Rae is the owner of real property located at 1644 Highway 17 North in Mt. Pleasant , South Carolina. He owns and operates Petitioner Rae's Cleaners, a dry
cleaning business which includes a production facility at that site. A strip
along the front of the property which consists of 0.1675 acre or 7,297 square
feet was acquired by SCDOT for a highway-widening project pursuant to a
condemnation action. The condemnation action was settled by Consent Order
dated December 12, 2004. The acquisition did not affect Petitioner’s building
or utility services, and had a minimal effect on the parking and circulation of
traffic on the property subsequent to the condemnation. However, as a part of
the highway widening project, a raised median will be installed on Highway 17
in front of Rae’s Cleaners which will prevent left turns into and out of the
property. After the installation of the median, customers will have to make
u-turns to access his building to and from the northbound lanes of Highway 17.
3. Petitioner
sought relocation benefits as a result of SCDOT’s property acquisition and
planned raised median installation. SCDOT denied those relocation benefits,
finding that Rae’s Cleaners was not a displaced person because the business is
not required to relocate as a direct result of the project. Petitioner argues
that a high-end dry cleaning business such as his cannot successfully operate
on a site without full and easy access from every direction. Mr. Rae contends
that because his customers would have to make a u-turn at a nearby traffic
light to access the business from the northbound lanes of Highway 17 changes
the highest and best use of his property from a primary, or impulse, site to
one suitable only for secondary, or destination, businesses. He estimated he
would lose at least half of his customers because the changes to the median
will make it inconvenient for customers attempting to pick up their clothing on
the way home from work.[1] Therefore, he claims that he will be forced to move his business as a result
of the left turn limitations the project will impose on his property. In other
words, it is not the acquisition of the small strip of land but the
installation of the median that Mr. Rae contends will adversely affect his business.
4. Petitioner’s
production facility will not be harmed by any of the potential roadway changes.
Additionally, Petitioner’s retail business was not adversely impacted by
SCDOT’s acquisition of the strip of land in front of his property. In fact,
once the project is complete, Petitioner's business will be more visible from
Highway 17. Furthermore, after the completion of the roadway project, the
subject site will be fit for many types of commercial uses, including its
current use.[2]
Petitioner’s retail business, however, will be negatively impacted by the left
turn limitations into his business. More specifically, Petitioner’s access
will not be as good as the dry cleaners he competes against.[3]
Nevertheless,
the evidence did not establish that the loss of the turning lane in front of
his business will make it necessary for Petitioner to move the retail business
from the site.
In other words, the evidence did not sufficiently show that his store will not
have sufficient customer volume to continue to operate at this location. Mr.
Rae testified that his business provides a high quality service and that his
customers are loyal to him. Those customers currently patronize the Highway 17
store though it is often difficult to make a left turn into the store from the
existing turn lane. Even after the construction of the raised median, the
store will have reasonable access from the northbound lanes of Highway 17. I
find that in light of his customers’ loyalty, it is reasonable to conclude that
Petitioner’s customers will make the minimal effort to access the retail business
after the construction of a raised median.
Furthermore, in anticipation of the changes to the median, Petitioner
opened several satellite stores. Those stores give Petitioner’s customers an
option if they do not wish to use the Highway 17 store as a result of the
roadway changes. More importantly, Petitioner has a means to cure most of the
difficulty in accessing his Highway 17 store by building a driveway to the new
Beaucastle connector road that is under construction to the rear of the subject
property. Therefore, I do not find that Petitioner’s business will be economically
infeasible as a direct result of the acquisition of a limited portion of the
property or the insertion of a raised median on the highway in front of the
business.
CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW
Based upon the above
Findings of Fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law:
1. The
ALC has subject matter jurisdiction in this case pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. 1-23-600(B)
(2005) and 25A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 63-322(D) (Supp 2004).
2. Petitioner
seeks moving expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 4622 as a result of SCDOT’s
acquisition of his property and the installation of a raised median on Highway
17 in front of his dry cleaning establishment. The South Carolina Relocation
Assistance Act, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 28-11-10, et seq. (1991 &
Supp. 2004), requires State agencies to make payments to displaced persons in
accord with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646). 42 U.S.C.A. Chapter 61 (Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies for Federal and
Federally Assisted Programs) and 49 C.F.R. Part 24 contain the criteria which
SCDOT must follow in determining a person’s entitlement to those relocation
assistance payments. More specifically, 42 U.S.C.A. § 4622 (a)(1) provides that
whenever a project undertaken by a displacing agency results in the
displacement of a person, the displacing agency shall provide for the payment
to the displaced person of “actual reasonable expenses” of moving the person's
business. Therefore, to obtain payment for moving expenses, Petitioner must be
displaced as a result of a project undertaken by SCDOT.
Here,
it is questionable whether Petitioner is even entitled to seek relocation
benefits. 42 U.S.C.A. § 4601 (6)(A) defines a “displaced person” as “any
person who moves from real property. . . as a direct result of a written notice
of intent to acquire or the acquisition of such real property in whole or in
part . . . .” Likewise, 49 C.F.R. § 24.2 (9)(i) defines a “displaced person”
as any person who moves from the real property:
(A) As a direct
result of a written notice of intent to acquire (see § 24.203(d)), the
initiation of negotiations for, or the acquisition of, such real property in
whole or in part for a project;
* * *
(C) As a direct result of a written notice
of intent to acquire, or the acquisition, rehabilitation or demolition of, in whole
or in part, other real property on which the person conducts a business or farm
operation, for a project.
Section 24.2
(9)(ii)(F) further provides that a person does not qualify as a displaced
person if that person is not displaced “as a direct result of a partial
acquisition.” SCDOT acquired a portion of Petitioner’s real property.
However, the acquisition of that land will have a negligible impact upon
Petitioner’s business. Nonetheless, in South Carolina, the erection of the
median barrier may be an interference with a valid property right that is
protected by the Constitution. See Hardin v. South Carolina Dept. of
Transp., 359 S.C. 244, 597 S.E.2d 814 (Ct. App. 2004). To receive
compensation under such circumstances, a person must establish a “special
injury.” Therefore, if Petitioner incurs a “special injury” as a result of the
erection of a median barrier, Petitioner may be entitled to compensation in the
court of common pleas for that injury.
Nevertheless,
there is no authority to recover relocation benefits merely because of a
“special injury.” Rather, the federal law explicitly sets forth that a person
must be required to relocate as a direct result of the acquisition. Arguably,
the only acquisition that occurred in this case as contemplated by 42 U.S.C.A.
Chapter 61 is the strip of land at the front of Petitioner’s business. The
acquisition of that land certainly has not precipitated the need for Petitioner
to relocate.
Furthermore,
even if the construction of the median is considered an acquisition of
Petitioner’s land within the meaning of the federal law dealing with relocation
benefits, Petitioner did not sufficiently establish that the loss of the strip
of land and the construction of a median will require his relocation. There
are no South Carolina cases addressing the standard to consider in determining
when a business has established that it is displaced as a result of a partial
acquisition. In Steppelman v. State Highway Com'n of Missouri, 650
S.W.2d 343 (1983), the Missouri court, however, did address this issue. In
that case, the Court, in addressing whether a mobile home park owner was forced
to terminate his business, considered whether the evidence established the
“economic infeasibility of [the owner] continuing the operation” of the
business. Applying that analysis to this case, the above facts do not
establish that Petitioner’s business will be economically infeasible as a
result of the land acquisition or the construction of a raised median.
In
making that determination, I find that Petitioner has a means to cure most of
the difficulty in accessing the Highway 17 store by building a driveway to the
new Beaucastle connector road to the rear of the property. Mr. Rae contends
that consideration of that evidence was improper. He argues that the date of
valuation for the acquisition of Petitioner’s property under the Eminent Domain
Procedures Act is the last point in time for which evidence should be admitted
to establish if construction of a median will require his relocation. In other
words, no evidence should be allowed after the date of the filing of the
Condemnation Notice.
I
find that construction grossly in error. Here, the predominant factual issue
is the impact of a raised median that as of the date of the hearing was not
even constructed. Thus, Petitioner has yet to be impacted by that event.
Furthermore, the legal issue is whether the project will require the relocation
of the business. The hearing before the ALC is the de novo trial
at which that determination is made. The federal law regulating the
disbursement of relocation benefits does not restrict the consideration of
evidence to any particular point in time. Moreover, the ALC is clearly not
restricted to reviewing the decision of the SCDOT or considering the exact
evidence evaluated during the SCDOT’s determination. Brown v. S.C. Dep't of
Health & Envtl. Control, 348 S.C. 507, 560 S.E.2d 410 (2002); Marlboro Park Hosp. v. South Carolina Dept. of Health and Environmental Control,
358 S.C. 573, 595 S.E.2d 851 (Ct. App. 2004). Therefore, consideration of the
access to the Beaucastle connector road was proper.
3. In conclusion, I do not find that Petitioner has
been displaced as a direct result of the acquisition of the property. More
importantly, I do not find that the construction of a raised median in the
highway in front of Petitioner’s business will necessitate displacement.
ORDER
Based upon the above
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:
ORDERED that this case be dismissed.
AND IT IS SO
ORDERED.
_________________________________
Ralph
King Anderson, III
Administrative
Law Judge
January 3, 2006
Columbia, South Carolina
Though Mr. Rae is an exceptional businessman
with keen knowledge about the dry cleaning business, I do not find his
speculation regarding the potential loss of business sufficiently convincing.
In that regard, he also pointed out that SCDOT offered no testimony from anyone
concerning the impact the median would have upon the operation of the
business. SCDOT’s failure to present evidence as to how individuals will react
in the future to the need to make a u-turn rather than turn left from a median
was not significant. Furthermore, the probative value of that evidence was
limited in light of the fact that the median has not been completed.
|