ORDERS:
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This matter comes before me upon a Motion for Reconsideration filed by Petitioners
Sierra Club, South Carolina Wildlife Federation and League of Women Voters of Georgetown
County. These Petitioners request reconsideration of the February 13, 1998 Order rendered by
this administrative law judge in the above-captioned case. The Order followed a contested case
hearing conducted pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 48-39-150 (Supp. 1997), S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310, et seq. (Supp. 1997) and 23A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 30-6(B) (Supp. 1997). The Order
granted Respondent DeBordieu Colony Community Association's ("DeBordieu") application for
a critical area permit and water quality certification to perform dredging in the DeBordieu canals
in Georgetown County, South Carolina, conditioned on the permit incorporating certain
safeguards to protect the public interest.
The grounds for which a motion for reconsideration can be granted under ALJD Rule
29(C) and Rule 60(B), SCRCP are as follows:
1. mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
2. newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could
not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
3. fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party;
4. the judgment is void; or
5. the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application.
The motion for reconsideration fails to set forth any of these grounds. On that basis, the
motion is denied.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
STEPHEN P. BATES
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
March 9, 1998
Columbia, South Carolina |
