ORDERS:
CONSENT ORDER
This matter was before me for contested hearing on Monday, March 1, 2004. This is an
appeal of a permit amendment issued to Respondent David Wannamaker for the permit known as P/N
OCRM-98-344-E. This permit, as amended, authorized construction of a dock on property known
as Lot D, Peters Point Road, located on Store Creek, on Edisto Island, S. C. At the commencement
of this case, the parties arrived at a settlement of the issues raised in this appeal. Therefore, upon
motion and consent of all parties, as evidenced by their signatures below, I make the following
findings of fact.
1.George Marshall Harper is a resident of Edisto Island, residing at 8753 Peter’s Point
Road. Mr. Harper’s property is on Store Creek. Harper has a dock to Store Creek.
2.Harper’s property adjoins a tract of land previously owned by the Wannamaker family,
which was subdivided in 1998 to create three waterfront lots. Lot C was sold by Wannamaker to
Pauline Rowland.
Lot D was owned by Wannamaker at the time that a permit application was made
for this lot, but has since been sold to Karen and James Andrews
. Lot D adjoins Rowland’s lot and
Harper’s lot.
3.Harper was aware of Wannamaker’s intent to create three waterfront lots, and
understood that the configuration of Lot D limited the ability to construct a dock on this lot. Harper
cooperated with Wannamaker during the permitting process, and agreed to waive any objection to
construction of a dock for Lot D that entailed a 20 foot encroachment over the extended adjoining
property line shared by Wannamaker and Harper. The dock configuration agreed to between
Wannamaker and Harper showed the pierhead in front of Harper’s property, but the floating dock
located on the other side of the pierhead, toward the Rowland’s property.
4.On August 11, 1998, Steve and Paula Rowland provided a written statement to
OCRM advising that they had no objection “to David W. Wannamaker placing a dock across my
marsh property line and extend (sic) in front of my property.” On October 9, 1998, Wannamaker
requested that the permit application be held in abeyance while he worked out an agreement with
Harper. Harper agreed to construction of the dock so long as it was built in accordance with the plan
shown on the public notice. The construction plans shown on the public notice showed only a
pierhead encroaching over Harper’s property.
5.On October 26, 1998, permit number OCRM-98-344-E was issued, authorizing
construction of a dock at Lot D, consisting of a 10’ by 15’ foot floating dock, located on the left side
of a 10’ by 20’ fixed pierhead. The fixed pierhead encroached almost entirely over Harper’s adjoining
extended property line. The floating dock was off-set 20 feet from the Rowland’s extended property
line.
6.On November 9, 1998, the Rowlands filed an appeal of this permit based on their
desire to have the floating dock moved to the right side of the property, thus increasing the
encroachment on Harper to 50 + feet. This appeal was based on a desire to maintain “maximum
privacy.” The Rowlands represented in their appeal letter that the modification requested by their
appeal “was in the best interest” of both the Rowlands and Harper.
7.This appeal was never transmitted to the Administrative Law Judge Division as a
contested case. On December 4, 1998, Richard Chinnis, issued a letter to an agent of Wannamaker
advising that OCRM had agreed to amend the permit and relocate the floating dock to the right
(Harper) side of the pierhead. No notice was provided to Harper of either the Rowlands’ attempt to
appeal or Chinnis’ decision to amend the permit, based in part on Chinnis’ interpretation of
Rowland’s letter of November 9 indicating that Harper had consented to this amendment.
8.In fact, Harper had never consented to allow Rowland to represent his interests to
OCRM. Harper first learned of the modifications to this dock when construction commenced in
2003. At that time Harper notified OCRM and asked them to inspect the dock to determine if it was
in compliance with the issued permit. OCRM inspected the dock and determined that the dock was
34 square feet larger than originally permitted, but took no enforcement action against either
Wannamaker or the Andrews. This appeal followed.
9.The Andrews were not involved in any of the negotiations leading to the amended
permit, but purchased Lot D after the permit was amended and the dock was constructed.
10.The Andrews have agreed to relocate the floating dock from where it is presently
constructed, in front of Harper’s extended property lines, to in front of the Andrews’ pierhead. In an
effort to keep the cost of removal down, the Andrews have requested that they be able to have the
work done when a marine contractor or dock builder is already in the area. In addition, in removing
and relocating the floating dock, the Andrews are only required to cut the pilings supporting the
floating dock at the mud line. They are not required to remove that portion of the piling embedded
under the creek bed.
11.To accommodate the Andrews’ concerns about the cost of removal, Harper has agreed
that the Andrews have until September 1, 2004, to relocate this floating dock. In the event that the
Andrews have been unable to contract with a marine contractor or dock builder to complete this
relocation by September 1, 2004, then Harper has agreed to extend the deadline for relocation of the
floating dock until December 1, 2004, provided that the Andrews demonstrate due diligence in their
efforts to obtain a dock builder or marine contractor and complete relocation of this floating dock.
12.OCRM recognizes that once the floating dock is relocated to the front of the pierhead
it may need to be increased in width, based on the length of the ramp. OCRM hereby agrees to
authorize the necessary increase in width to stabilize the floating dock structure in front of the
pierhead.
Based on these Findings of Fact, it is, hereby, ORDERED:
That Respondent Andrews relocate the floating dock on the dock located at Lot D, Peters
Point Rd., Edisto Island, S. C. to the front of the pierhead. That such relocation shall be
accomplished by September 1, 2004, unless, upon a showing of due diligence, the time is extended.
Under no circumstances, however, shall the time for removal extend beyond Dec. 1, 2004.
And it is so Ordered.
April 1, 2004
The Honorable C. Dukes Scott |
