ORDERS:
CONSENT ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This matter is before me by consent of all parties for entry of an Order of Dismissal. This is
an appeal of a dock permit issued by Respondent South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (“OCRM”) to Marjorie
Shifflette, permit # OCRM-02-396-C, issued October 16, 2003. This permit authorized construction
of a dock at Ms. Shifflette’s property known as 1738 Brantley Drive, James Island, Charleston
County, South Carolina. 1738 Brantley Drive is located adjacent to Ellis Creek.
The permit issued by OCRM to Ms. Shifflette authorized construction of a walkway and a
pierhead, measuring 10' by 10'. The permit limits the portion of the pierhead located over open water
to a 10' by 5' section.
Petitioners Harry and Carole Delger are adjoining property owners, residing at 1732 Brantley
Drive. Upon receiving notice of this application Petitioners filed written objections to this permit.
Petitioners initiated this appeal upon issuance of the permit. Petitioners’ grounds for appeal are based
on allegations that Shifflette’s permit application contained certain inaccuracies regarding the marsh
and creek areas where the dock is proposed.
In order to address Petitioners’ concerns, Ms. Shifflette retained the services of a licensed,
professional land surveyor and commissioned a survey of the land and water areas behind her
property on Brantley Drive. This survey is attached to this Consent Order of Dismissal as Exhibit
“A.” Based upon Respondents’ representations that the dock will be constructed in accordance with
the survey, Petitioners have agreed to dismiss their appeal.
Therefore, I note the following Stipulations of Fact:
1.Petitioners and Respondent Shifflette are residents of Charleston County, and own property
on Brantley Drive, James Island, adjacent to Ellis Creek. Petitioners reside at their property on
Brantley Drive. Respondent Shifflette does not presently reside at her property on Brantley Drive.
2.Petitioners have a dock to Ellis Creek. Petitioners’ dock is similar to the dock requested by
Respondent Shifflette–a relatively short (less than 100') walkway connected to a pierhead.
3.Ellis Creek, at the location of Petitioners’ and Shifflette’s property, is approximately 25 feet
wide, and has limited navigability on a falling tide.
4.Respondent Shifflette’s dock, if constructed as permitted by OCRM, is located 53 feet from
the shared extended property line between Shifflette and the Delgers. The dock commences at the
midpoint of Shifflette’s lot, and is located approximately 55 feet from the shared extended property
line of the lot located on the other side of Shifflette’s property.
5.As surveyed, the walkway measures 84 feet. However, OCRM authorized construction of
a walkway length of up to 100 feet, provided that the pierhead extends no more than five feet beyond
the edge of the marsh grass and over open water. The factor controlling the length of this dock is
the condition that no more than 5 feet of the pierhead is located over open water. Further, this
condition addresses the primary concerns of the Petitioners, that being their ability to navigate their
boat around Respondent’s dock in a small creek with limited depths on a falling tide.
6.While it is obvious from the survey that the length of the dock walkway will be less than 100
feet, the limitation on the channel-ward extension of the pierhead will operate to control the overall
length of the dock and prevent the dock from imposing any navigational concerns. Therefore, it is
unnecessary to amend the OCRM permit to reflect the dimensions shown on Exhibit “A.” It is,
however, expressly understood between the parties that the dock length is not expected to exceed
90 feet or extend out more than five feet into the waterway at the grass end.
Based upon these facts as set forth above, Petitioners have agreed to dismiss their appeal of
this permit. Therefore, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice, and the permit issued by
OCRM to Marjorie Shifflette is modified to reflect matters as stated in this Order.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
June 26, 2003
Columbia, South Carolina |
