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:
South Carolina Coastal Conservation League vs. SCDHEC et al.

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

PARTIES:
Petitioner:
South Carolina Coastal Conservation League

Respondent:
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, and Ginn-LA Parkers Island, L.P.
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
99-ALJ-07-0472-CC

APPEARANCES:
James S. Chandler, Jr.
Attorney for the Petitioners

Mary D. Shahid
Attorney for DHEC-OCRM

Ginn LA Parkers Island, L.P.
By: Robert F. Master,
Its Attorney
 

ORDERS:

CONSENT ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This is a contested case appeal from the decision of the staff of the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, (DHEC/OCRM) to issue a modification of a permit (P/N 95-1I-128_ to allow the filling of wetlands and construction of golf cart bridges and a pedestrian bridge across intertidal salt water wetlands at the Parkers Island development in Charleston County, South Carolina. The parties have reached an agreement to settle this matter, and wish to have the terms of the settlement agreement incorporated into the final order in this case. The agreement of the parties is as follows:

1. Ginn-LA Parkers Island, L.P. agrees that 35 foot wide natural vegetated buffers will surround most of the development, except in areas where taller vegetation could interfere with the play on the golf course. The purpose of these buffers is to prevent fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, animal waste containing bacteria, oil or gasoline, PAH's, and other chemical contaminants from reaching the estuary from surface and subsurface flows. These pollutants can come from lawns, driveways, roof tops, the golf course, and roadways. The green buffers drawn on the attached map indicate the 35 foot wide vegetated buffers. (See map attached as exhibit A). While there may be some pruning of vegetation to provide a view within the 35 foot buffer, no clearing with mechanical devices like bulldozers is permitted. Sixty-seven percent of the buffer on each lot or parcel is to retain most native vegetation including bushes and trees. However, vines may be removed, bushes may be trimmed and the lower limbs of trees removed to enhance the view. In addition, individual lot owners may create a view/access corridor within the 35 foot buffer, the width of which will not exceed 33% of the width of the lot at the critical line or the mean high water mark. A manicured lawn requiring fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides may not occupy this 33% view corridor within the 35 foot buffer. The blue areas drawn on the attached map represent areas of nu buffers where taller vegetation would interfere with the golf course play and other means of stormwater control previously approved by the S.C. Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management will be employed to prevent pollutants from entering the estuary.

2. These buffers must be recorded on the property plats and described on the property deeds for all conveyances. Education information on buffers will be made available to those initially purchasing home sites in this development.

3. The maximum number of docks in this development shall be 45. No docks will be permitted on the north island along lots 8 to 45. No docks will be permitted on the west side of the south island. The developer will encourage those purchasing lots to build joint use docks.

4. The developer will apply for permits from OCRM and use the Army Corps of Engineers to remove the existing causeway across the march to the Phillips community from the bridge to the developer's island and restore the marsh. The bridge and the existing overhead SCE&G power lines will be left in place for the enjoyment of residents of the Phillips community.

5. In return for the terms stated in items 1 through 4, Petitioners agree to dismiss this contested case appeal of the permit.

NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby ordered adjudged, and decreed:

1. The agreement of the parties as stated hereinabove is hereby adopted by the Administrative Law Judge Division and shall be made a part of this Order.

2. The Petitioner's appeal of the permit at issue in this case is hereby dismissed, with prejudice, except that Petitioners retain full rights to enforce the terms of the agreement stated in this Order.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.





___________________________________

CAROLYN C. MATTHEWS

Administrative Law Judge Division



February 1, 2000.

Columbia, South Carolina.


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court