ORDERS:
CONSENT ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This matter was before me on June 17, 2004, for contested case hearing. This is an
appeal made by Petitioners of a permit issued by the S. C. Department of Health and
Environmental Control, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (“OCRM”)
authorizing construction of a community dock on and adjacent to Molasses Creek at lots 9 and
10, River Watch Subdivision, Mt. Pleasant, Charleston County, S. C. P/N # 2003-1E-251-P was
issued on January 13, 2004, to Formosa Land Company, Inc., the owners and developers of the
subdivision known as River Watch. Petitioners are all property owners residing adjacent to
Molasses Creek in close proximity to the proposed community dock. Petitioner Thomas Rogers
is represented by C. C. Harness, III, Esq. The remaining Petitioners are represented by Mary D.
Shahid, Esq. OCRM is represented by its Chief Counsel, Leslie S. Riley, Esq. Respondent
Formosa Land Co. is represented by Dan David, Esq.
A contested case hearing was convened in this matter on June 17, 2004. Prior to
concluding this hearing the parties advised this Court that they had reached an agreement
resolving all issues raised by Petitioners’ appeal. This agreement is as follows:
1.Respondent Formosa Land Co. will stake the location of the dock within the
corridor developed for the dock and depicted on Attachment “A” to this issued permit (“Trico
Survey”). The purpose of the placement of stakes is to confirm the location of the pierhead and
floating dock as marked by a PVC pipe described in testimony during trial and insure it is
consistent with the location as shown in Attachment A to the Permit. Respondent will notify
Petitioners, through their attorneys Mary D. Shahid and Cotton Harness, when the placement of
stakes is completed. Petitioners have fourteen days from the date of notification to Petitioners’
counsels to inspect the stakes and agree with the location of the dock.
2.If Petitioners determine that the dock exceeds the limits of the corridor or is not
located within the corridor created by Trico and depicted on Attachment “A” to the issued
permit, Petitioners retain the right to reinstate their contested case as to the issue of the location
of the dock.
3.The roof authorized on the fixed pierhead is deleted.
4.The floating dock will be reduced in size from 8 feet by 30 feet to 8 feet by 20
feet, for a total reduction of eighty square feet.
5.The entire length of the walkway, from that point where it departs high ground at
Lots 9 and 10 to the terminus of the walkway at the pierhead, will be maintained at an elevation
of no more than nine inches above the top of the marsh grass at the time of construction. The
exclusive purpose of the nine inch separation is to allow sufficient space for the component of
walkway construction known as the “stringer.” The bottom of the stringer shall be at the top of
the marsh grass.
6.The walkway shall include handrail construction but the height of the handrails
above the surface of the walkway shall not exceed 30 inches.
7.All other Special Conditions and General Conditions that are expressly contained
in OCRM P/N # 2003-1E-251-P remain in effect provided that these Special and General
Conditions are not in conflict with the terms and conditions of this Consent Order.
8.It is expressly understood by and between all parties that the terms of this
Consent Order which dictate revisions to the dock, including the reduction in the float,
elimination of the roof, elevation of the walkway, and height of the handrails, are for the purpose
of addressing potential negative impacts to Petitioners’ use and enjoyment of their property.
Therefore, Respondent Formosa Land Co., its heirs and assigns, shall not seek any permit or
permit amendment from OCRM that is in conflict with any terms herein. In addition, OCRM
shall not accept any application for permit or permit amendment that is in conflict with any
terms herein.
The matters set forth above were recited at the hearing before me. Following recitation
of the terms of the Agreement all parties, through counsel, indicated their assent to this
agreement.
It is, therefore, Ordered:
A.That P/N 2003-1E-251-P be, and it is hereby, modified to reflect the matters set
forth in Paragraphs 1 through 8 above.
B.That Petitioners’ appeal of P/N 2003-1E-251-P be, and it is hereby, dismissed
with prejudice as it relates to the size of the floating dock, the roof, the elevation of the walkway,
and the handrails.
C.That Petitioners’ appeal of P/N 2003-1E-251-P be, and it is hereby, dismissed
without prejudice as it relates to the location of the dock within the corridor reflected on
“Attachment A” to the issued permit, the Trico Engineering Co. survey.
D.That Petitioners have fourteen days from the date of notification by Respondent
Formosa Land Co. to reinstate their appeal as to the issue of the location of the dock within the
dock corridor. If Petitioners fail to reinstate their appeal before the expiration of fourteen days
from the date of notification by Respondent Formosa Land Co. that it is ready for Petitioner to
inspect its stakes, then Petitioners are barred from reinstatement of their appeal on this issue and
by operation of this Consent Order Petitioners’ appeal as to the location of the dock shall be
considered as dismissed with prejudice.
And it is so Ordered.
_________________________________
The Honorable Ralph King Anderson, III |
