ORDERS:
CONSENT ORDER OF DISMISSAL
The parties to the above-entitled action hereby agree to settle the above-entitled
matter and agree to dismiss the appeal subject to the conditions set forth in an Agreement
executed by both parties and attached hereto.
Based upon the foregoing, the matter is hereby dismissed; and
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This the 26th day of September, 1995.
_________________________________
STEPHEN P. BATES
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
WE CONSENT:
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash
Smoak and Stewart, L.L.P.
_________________________________
C. C. Harness, III
Attorney for Petitioner
South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control,
Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management
_________________________________
John P. Kassebaum
Attorney for Respondent
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION
Docket No. 95-ALJ-07-0372-CC
G. Kingman Hodgkiss, Jr.,
Petitioner,
vs.
South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control, Office of
Ocean and Coastal Resource Management,
Respondent.
AGREEMENT
The parties to the above-entitled action, hereby agree to settlement of this matter based upon the
following mutual agreements:
1. The small unnamed creek bordering Petitioner's property located at Lot 24,
Block D, Cooper Estates Subdivision, Mount Pleasant, Charleston County, South Carolina is a
navigable creek and, but for the trees obstructing the channel, the creek would be navigable in fact
during periods of high tide.
2. The intent of regulations requiring docks to extend to the first navigable creek is so that
navigation will not be impeded. The effect of this regulation applied to the facts of this case
would further impede navigation and restrict the publics' use of State lands and waters.
3. Due to the site specific characteristics, and that the spirit and intent of the regulation is to
preserve the navigability of small streams; it is therefore resolved that the policies of the Coastal
Zone Management Act are best served by allowing Petitioner to bridge the small creek and extend
this dock to Shem Creek.
4. Respondent agrees to issue a permit to Petitioner allowing for the construction of a dock
bridging the small creek and terminating at Shem Creek. The dock will be constructed according
to all other applicable rules and regulations.
5. Petitioner agrees to construct his dock so that no part of the unnamed creek will be blocked by
pilings.
6. Petitioner agrees that should the trees obstructing the channel in the small creek be removed,
and his dock as permitted be destroyed, he will not rebuild the dock to Shem Creek without
obtaining a new permit from OCRM, subject to the then existing laws regulating docks.
The undersigned do hereby acknowledge that they have read this Agreement, fully understand the
contents, and bind themselves, their heirs and assigns to the terms and conditions above stated on
this, the 23rd day of August, 1995.
WITNESSES:
___________________________
Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management
____________________________
G. Kingman Hodgkiss, Jr.
____________________________
C. C. Harness, III
Attorney for Petitioner |