Opinion ID: 2207621
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Coastal Zone Status Decision

Text: The CZA prohibits the construction of new bulk product transfer facilities outside of the Port of Wilmington, 7 Del.C. §§ 7002(f) and 7003. However, a bulk product transfer facility in operation on June 28, 1971 constitutes a non-conforming use and is not subject to the CZA prohibition. Id. Although Texaco had obtained non-conforming use status for the facility in 1972, Oceanport sought a new determination that its proposed use of the facility constituted the continuation of a non-conforming use. On May 14, 1987 Oceanport requested a Coastal Zone Status Decision, an administratively created mechanism for the determination of whether or how proposed projects are regulated by the CZA. Oceanport requested a finding that its facility was exempt from the CZA as a docking facility or pier for a single industrial facility under 7 Del.C. 7002(f), or alternatively, that the site and its proposed use constituted a bulk product transfer facility which was in operation on June 28, 1971, and was therefore a nonconforming use under Sections 7003 and 7002(f). In the application, Oceanport proposed to use the property to off-load and store solid bulk product, such as road salt, crushed stone, cement, and other non-toxic products. Oceanport indicated that it would reduce 25% of the oil storage capacity of the facility, including a cluster of eight tanks closest to the water, and remove two pipelines from the pier, to be replaced with a conveyor belt for the solid bulk products. Although the application indicated that the substitution of the conveyor belt for the pipelines would not in and of itself result in a restructuring, reconfiguration or widening of the existing pier, it also stated that the existing pier would be extended and improved to eliminate the need for frequent dredging. On June 25, 1987, the Secretary of the DNREC issued a status decision which determined that the proposal was not governed by the Coastal Zone Act. In making the determination, he made three findings about the proposed project: 1. Because the use of the site as an offshore bulk product transfer facility predates enactment of the Coastal Zone Act, the facility enjoyed nonconforming use status at the time the Coastal Zone Act was enacted. 2. The use of the site as an offshore bulk transfer facility had continued to the present despite the temporary decrease in transfer operations caused by the pier fire in May 1987. 3. The proposed modifications did not constitute a significant expansion or extension since there would be no significant increase in production capacity (no production/manufacturing existed), no significant increase in land area encompassing the proposed operation, and no significant increase in environmental impact. The three-part test applied in the status decision to the proposed modifications is derived from the regulatory definition of expansion or extension of non-conforming uses under the CZA. [1] The status decision was not appealed by WSI or any other entity and, according to its terms, became final fourteen days following the date of the legal notice of the decision.