ORDERS:
ORDER REINSTATING CASE TO DOCKET
In the above referenced matter, a request for a contested case hearing was filed on February
4, 1998, and on February 11, 1998, this matter was assigned to my office. On February 12, 1998, Mr.
William Partenheimer, Secretary/Treasurer of the Fishing Creek Resorts Property Owners
Association, Inc., sent the Administrative Law Judge Division a letter with attachments which
indicated that the "permit applicant" did not represent the property owners of Fishing Creek Resorts
Property Owners Association, Inc. The letter also stated that the membership of Fishing Creek
Resorts Property Owners Association, Inc., unanimously approved a resolution opposing the project
at its annual meeting.
Consequently, in an order filed March 4, 1998, this tribunal dismissed the case for lack of
controversy between the parties based on the presumption that Fishing Creek Property Owners and
Fishing Creek Resort Property Owner Association, Inc., were one and the same. However, by letter
dated March 17, 1998. George P. Lachicotte, representative for Fishing Creek Property Owners
advised this tribunal that the two entities with separate representation. Moreover, Mr. Lachicotte
requested, on behalf of Fishing Creek Property Owners, that the case be reinstated. Because the
above-referenced matter was dismissed based on this tribunal's mistaken belief that Petitioners(1) did
not wish to go forward, and Petitioners have indicated that as the permit applicant, they do indeed
wish to go forward, this case is hereby reinstated.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case be reinstated on the docket without
prejudice.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
Post Office Box 11667
Columbia, South Carolina 29211-1667
March 23, 1998
Columbia, South Carolina
1. This tribunal erroneously believed Mr. Partenheimer's February 12, 1998 communication
expressed Petitioners' desire not to go forward. However, because Mr. Partenheimer's organization
is separate and distinct from the actual Petitioners (represented by Mr. Lachicotte), his February 12,
1998, letter should not have been treated as a communication from Petitioners. |