SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

This matter comes before me upon petition for a contested case hearing de novo pursuant to S. C. Code Ann. § 48-39-150 (Supp. 1994) and S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310, et seq. (1986 & Supp. 1994) regarding Petitioner's opposition to Respondents Jeremiah and Jackie Reeves' (hereinafter referred to as "the Reeves") application for construction of a dock and boat ramp on and adjacent to Murrell's Inlet at 630 Creekside Drive, Mt. Gilead Subdivision, Murrell's Inlet, South Carolina, in Horry County. The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (hereinafter referred to as "OCRM") preliminarily approved the permit application with restrictions. Petitioner opposes that portion of the proposed permit which authorizes the construction of a wooden boat ramp and supporting wooden trestle. A hearing was conducted at the Georgetown County Courthouse, in Georgetown, South Carolina, on November 28, 1995. Upon review of the relevant facts and applicable law, OCRM is ordered to issue the permit to the Reeves as proposed, with a stipulation that the boat ramp must not be located within twenty feet (20') of Petitioner's property line.

DISCUSSION

The proposed permit authorizes the construction of a dock and separate boat ramp on the Reeves' property. Petitioner, the adjacent landowner to the south of the applicant, does not object to the construction of the dock, but does oppose the construction of the boat ramp. While the parties differ as to the most accurate description of the proposed elevated wooden structure to be used for removing boats from the water (alternately referring to it as a ramp, trestle, cradle, or launch), it is agreed that it is a "boat ramp" for purposes of applying the provisions of 23A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 30-12(B) (1976). By stipulation of the parties, the sole issues considered are whether OCRM regulations prohibit the construction of a boat ramp on a lot which also contains a permitted dock; and, if not necessarily prohibited, whether the approval of both a boat ramp and dock is warranted in the present situation.

FINDINGS OF FACT

By a preponderance of the evidence, I find:

1. Jeremiah B. and Jackie W. Reeves are the owners of a lot on and adjacent to Murrell's Inlet, at 630 Creekside Drive, Mt. Gilead Subdivision, Murrell's Inlet, South Carolina, in Horry County.
2. Petitioner is the owner of a lot on and adjacent to Murrell's Inlet, at 624 Creekside Drive, Mt. Gilead Subdivision, Murrell's Inlet, South Carolina, in Horry County, located adjacent and to the south of the Reeves' lot.
3. Murrell's Inlet is in the tidal and coastal zone area of southern Horry County.
4. By application dated June 9, 1995, application P/N# OCRM-95-540, The Reeves sought authorization from OCRM to construct, for their private and recreational use: a 60 linear foot bulkhead along the water frontage; a 4'x25' walkway leading from the bulkhead to an 8'x16' offset from the walkway and to a 16'x16' fixed dock; and a 16' ramp leading from the fixed dock to a 16'x16' floating dock; separately but also attached to the bulkhead, a 4'x16' elevated wooden boat ramp supported by a wooden trestle.
5. Notification of Public Notice of the Reeves application was issued by OCRM on June 22, 1995, to allow public comment on the application.
6. By letter dated July 2, 1995, Petitioner notified OCRM of his opposition to the construction of the proposed boat ramp.
7. OCRM issued a Critical Area Permit, permit OCRM-95-540, to the Reeves on July 14, 1995, with general and special conditions.
8. Petitioner filed with OCRM a Notice of Intent to Appeal the proposed permit by letter dated July 19, 1995, and on August 2, 1995, OCRM filed an Agency Transmittal Form with this Division for a contested case hearing.
9. Petitioner opposes that portion of the proposed permit which authorizes the construction of the wooden boat ramp and supporting wooden trestle, but not the construction of the dock.
10. The proposed structure at issue is a 16' elevated wooden ramp leading from the water to the bulkhead. The ramp is comprised of two wooden runners supported by wooden pilings and cross braces. The runners rise from the water at a gradual angle and level off to form a level "cradle" area for a boat to rest at the landward end of the ramp.
11. The proposed use of the ramp is to periodically launch and remove small sailboats from the water for repairs and maintenance. The proposed ramp is not intended for frequent use nor is it designed for launching or removing large boats.
12. The Reeves currently own or have on their property two john boats, a 19' sailboat, a 38' sailboat, and a catamaran sailboat. They intend to buy and sell more boats in the future for their own recreational use.
13. A public boat ramp is located a few miles from the subject property.
14. The Reeves launch and remove the large sailboats from a commercial ramp and sail the boats to their property for mooring. They intend to continue that practice even if the proposed ramp is constructed.
15. The subject property has approximately 60' of water frontage.
16. Petitioner's lot has approximately 60' of water frontage and contains a OCRM permitted dock on Murrell's Inlet.
17. The proposed boat ramp will be within Petitioner's plain view from his home, lawn, and and dock.
18. No dredging or filling is necessary to construct the ramp.
19. The proposed boat ramp will have minimal impact upon the marsh grass and estuarine life in Murrell's Inlet.
20. No other private ramps are located in the immediate vicinity of the subject property, although OCRM has approved permits for both a dock and a boat ramp for other waterfront lots located within the tidal and coastal zone.
21. The Reeves and OCRM stipulated at the hearing that the proposed ramp, if approved, would be located no closer than 20' from Petitioner's property line.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude as a matter of law the following:

1. The Administrative Law Judge Division has subject matter jurisdiction in this action pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600 (Supp. 1994) and S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310, etseq. (1986 & Supp. 1994).
2. S.C. Code Ann. § 48-39-150 (Supp. 1994) and 23A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 30-6 (as amended June, 1995) authorize the Administrative Law Judge Division with jurisdiction to hear contested cases arising under Chapter 39 of Title 48 of the 1976 Code.
3. OCRM is the subdivision within DHEC charged with administering the State's coastal zone policies and issuing permits for docks and piers in coastal zone areas.
4. S.C. Code Ann. § 48-39-50 (Supp. 1994) provides the authority for DHEC to promulgate regulations relating to carry out the provisions of Chapter 39 of Title 48 of the 1976 Code.
5. 23A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 30-1 through 30-20 (1976 & Supp. 1994) were promulgated by the Coastal Council, the predecessor to OCRM, as the applicable regulations governing the management, development, and protection of the coastal zone areas of the state and subsequently amended by OCRM, June 1995.
6. Section 48-39-150(A) and 23A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 30-11 (1976 & Supp. 1994) set forth the guidelines to be used in assessing the impact of a project in a critical area.
7. The project in question is located in a critical area under S.C. Code Ann. § 48-39-10 (J) (Supp. 1994); 23A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 30-1(C)(4) and (12) (Supp. 1994); 23A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 30-10(A) (1976).
8. 23A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 30-12(A) (Supp. 1994) sets forth the specific project standards for construction of docks and piers for tidelands and coastal waters.
9. 23A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 30-12(B) (1976) sets forth for the specific project standards for construction of boat ramps for tidelands and coastal waters.
10. 23A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 30-12(B)(1) (1976) provides: "Boat ramps provide access to the water for those who do not have water access by means of docks, piers, or marinas. However, boat ramp construction may require filling or, in some case, dredging of wetland areas." Regs. 30-12(B)(2) sets forth the specific standards that apply to boat ramp site selection, construction, and permitting.
11. Under applicable rules of statutory construction, statutes and regulations must be afforded practical, reasonable, and fair interpretation consonant with the purpose, design, and policy of the legislature, and where statutes relate to the same subject, they must be construed together and harmonized, if possible, to be given effect by reasonable construction. Deltoro v. McMullen, S.C. Ct. App. Op. #2423 (filed November 27, 1995).
12. The proposed project at issue, whether called a boat "ramp", "trestle", or any other name, is a boat ramp for purposes of the OCRM regulations, and 23A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 30-12(B) (1976) in particular.
13. The language of 23A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 30-12(B)(1) (1976) is descriptive rather than prohibitive in nature. Regs. 30-12(B)(1) provides a general definition for "boat ramp." It is not to be interpreted as absolutely barring boat ramp construction by landowners who also have water access by other means, such as a dock. OCRM's issuance of single permits for both a dock and boat ramp on the same property to previous applicants is evidence of the agency's uniform application of Regs. 30-12(B) as such.
14. The subject boat ramp, as proposed in form and intended use, is of sound design and can be reasonably expected to be safe, effective, and have minimal environmental impact. 23A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 30-12(B)(2)(b) (1976).

ORDER

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Permit OCRM-95-540 is approved as proposed, with the additional stipulation that the boat ramp must not be located within twenty feet (20') of the property boundary shared with adjacent landowner Len Senior.

___________________________________

STEPHEN P. BATES

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

December 13, 1995

Columbia, South Carolina