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:
Fishing Creek Property Owners vs. SCDHEC

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

PARTIES:
Petitioner:
Fishing Creek Property Owners

Respondent:
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Bureau of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
98- ALJ-07-0080-CC

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

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.


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court