ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before me pursuant to Petitioner Lydia Woodberry's request for a contested case hearing to challenge the denial of
her application for a septic tank permit by the Respondent, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC
or Department). The Department determined that the soil conditions of Petitioner's property did not meet the minimum requirements
set forth under 24A S.C. Code Ann. Reg. 61-56 (1976). The Administrative Law Judge Division (ALJD) has jurisdiction over this
matter pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-600 (B) (Supp. 2000) and S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-310 et seq. (1986 & Supp. 2000) After
timely notice to the parties, a hearing was conducted on January 16, 2001 at the Administrative Law Judge Division in Columbia,
South Carolina.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having carefully considered the testimony and the arguments of both sides, and taking into account the credibility of the evidence and
witnesses, I find the following by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. Notice of the time, date, place and subject matter of the hearing was given to all parties in a timely manner.
2. Petitioner seeks a septic tank permit for property located 606 Martin Luther King Drive, Gresham, Marion County, South Carolina.
- Petitioner received title to the subject property by deed dated January 4, 1996.
4. Petitioner submitted an application on October 20, 1998 to the Marion County DHEC office for permission to construct an
individual sewage treatment and disposal system on the subject property.
5. After Petitioner submitted the application for the septic tank permit, Damon Holmes, a DHEC employee, inspected the property
and evaluated the soil. This evaluation revealed that seasonal high ground water table ranging between zero (0) and nine (9) inches
below the natural surface of the ground and clay soils at seven (7) inches. Since these results did not meet the minimum requirements
set forth under 24A S.C. Code Ann. Reg. 61-56 (1976), Mr. Holmes determined that no type of septic tank system could be permitted
for the proposed use of Petitioner's property.
6. On November 12, 1998, Damon Holmes and his supervisor, William Lett, made a follow-up visit to the property. Mr. Lett
evaluated the site for the use of an alternative and experimental septic tank system. However, due to the condition of the soil, Mr.
Lett determined that no type of septic tank system could be permitted for the Petitioner's property.
7. By letter dated August 19, 1999, Petitioner appealed the Department's decision to deny the septic tank permit.
8. On August 23, 1999, Petitioner was notified that an administrative review and a site evaluation would be conducted to
determine if her property was suitable for the installation of any type of conventional, modified, alternative, or experimental septic
tank system.
9. Mr. Reid Houston conducted this site evaluation on September 8, 1999. This evaluation reaffirmed the previous findings that
the location was not suitable for any type of on-site wastewater treatment and disposal system.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon these Findings of Fact, I conclude as a matter of law:
1. The Administrative Law Judge Division has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600 (B)
(Supp. 2000) and S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310 et seq. (1986 & Supp. 2000)
2. S.C. Code Ann. § 44-1-140(11) (1976) provides the authority for DHEC to promulgate regulations relating to septic tank systems.
3. 24A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-56 (1976) governs septic tank systems and the issuance of permits for these systems.
4. Before a septic tank permit will be granted, the proposed site must meet standards set by DHEC. 24A S.C. Code Ann. Regs.
61-56 (1976).
5. 24A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-56(V)(B) (1976) provides the maximum seasonal high water table elevation shall not be less
than six (6) inches below the bottom of the proposed soil absorption trenches or alternate system.
6. The Department may deny an application for an individual sewage treatment and disposal system permit when conditions of an
inspected property fail to correspond with the above-stated requirements. S.C. Code Ann. § 48-1-50(5) (1987); see also South
Carolina Dept. Of Health and Environmental Control v. Armstrong, 293 S.C. 209, 214, 359 S.E.2d 302, 304-305 (Ct. App. 1987) All
of the requirements of the Regulations must be met before a septic tank permit may be issued. If any of the requirements cannot be
satisfied, the permit application must be denied in order to safeguard the public health and to protect the environment.
7. Under the evidence presented in this case, Petitioner's property does not meet the minimum site conditions for an individual
sewage treatment and disposal system under 24A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-56 (1976). Therefore, this permit must be denied.
ORDER
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitioner's application for a septic tank permit for property located at 606 Martin Luther King
Drive, Gresham, South Carolina is denied.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________________________
C. Dukes Scott
Administrative Law Judge
January 30, 2001
Columbia, South Carolina |
