South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
Dorothy S. Seabrook vs. SCDHEC et al.

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

PARTIES:
Petitioner:
Dorothy S. Seabrook

Respondent:
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management and Barrett Boulware

Intervenor:
RuthMarie Alston-Johnson
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
96-ALJ-07-0062-CC

APPEARANCES:
Edward M. Brown, Esq.
Attorney for Petitioner

R. Alexander Murdaugh, Esq.
Attorney for Barrett Boulware

Vernell Scott, Esq.
Attorney for Intervenor

R. Alexander Murdaugh, Esq.
Attorney for Barrett Boulware

John Kassebaum, Esq.
Attorney for S.C. Dept. of Health and Environmental Control, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources
 

ORDERS:

ORDER

This matter comes before me to be heard on this day, May 28, 1996, 10:00 a.m., in Columbia, South Carolina by petition of Mrs. Dorothy S. Seabrook, questioning the validity of a bridge permit issued to Barrett Boulware by the Office of Coastal Resource Management. Mrs. Alston-Johnston moved to intervene, and that Motion was granted. The Petitioner, Dorothy S. Seabrook, is present and represented by her attorney, Edward M. Brown, Esq. The Intervenor, Mrs. Alston-Johnson is present and represented by her attorney, Vernell Scott, Esquire. The Respondent, OCRM, is present and is represented by its attorney, John Kassebaum, Esq. The Respondent, Barrett Boulware, is present and is represented by his attorney, R. Alexander Murdaugh, Esquire.

THIS COURT FINDS AS MATTERS OF FACT:

1. That the sole disputed issue between the parties is the ownership of the land that constitutes the point of origin of the proposed bridge with the point of destination being Legare Island.

2. That the exception of ownership of the above-mentioned land, the parties have agreed that the permit for the proposed bridge is proper.

3. That the parties have agreed tha thte Petitioner, Mrs. Seabrook, and the Intervenor, Mrs. Alston-Johnson, will in a timely manner file a Quiet Title in the Beaufort County Court of Common Pleas to determine ownership of the land in question.

4. That the parties have agreed that pending the outcome of the Quiet Title suit, Mr. Boulware will not attempt to begin construction of a bridge.

5. That because the parties have reached an agreement resolving the sole disputed issue, the matter is moot.

BASED ON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

1. That the sole disputed issue between the parties is the ownership of the land that constitutes the point of origin of the proposed bridge and because the parties have reached an amicable resolution that issue is moot.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________________________________

RAY N. STEVENS

Administrative Law Judge

This 8th day of August, 1996

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court