Opinion ID: 1402903
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Findings of the ALJ

Text: DHEC first contends the circuit court erred in improperly making new findings of fact and in overturning the ALJ's findings of fact in violation of the applicable standard of review. Specifically, DHEC contends the circuit court erred in overturn[ing] the ALJ's findings that the area between Hill's property and adjoining canals is tidal marsh; that OCRM accurately measured the alleged violations; that Hill improperly filled in excess of 1,000 square feet of critical area marsh; that Hill erected his bulkhead too far channelward of the escarpment; and that Hill's actions resulted in a permanent loss of productivity from the estuary. DHEC asserts each of the ALJ's findings was fully supported by substantial evidence and these findings support the ALJ's conclusion that Hill violated the CZMA and the terms of his permit. The circuit court found [t]he ALJ's conclusions and findings were in error because, as a prerequisite to any of the findings or conclusions, the record must reflect that [DHEC] proved the existence and location of a lawfully established Critical Area Line. [DHEC] did not. Without first establishing a valid Critical Area Line, [DHEC] cannot demonstrate that it had any regulatory jurisdiction over [Hill's] property. The circuit court, citing section 48-39-210 of the South Carolina Code, stated critical lines expire after three years and in this case DHEC had relied upon a critical line that was over three years old. The circuit court further stated that even if DHEC has jurisdiction over Hill's property, DHEC's failure to establish a valid critical area is dispositive of whether it met its burden of proof in establishing Hill's alleged violations. The circuit court additionally found even with a valid critical line, DHEC's environmental manager could not interpret the drawings that were attached to the permit, and the permit provided the bulkhead was to be constructed in conformity with the drawings. We hold the circuit court erred in overturning the findings of the ALJ and in determining any issues regarding the location of the critical line would preclude establishing a violation in this case. The ALJ considered the import of the critical line as well as the alleged ambiguity of the drawings. As to the critical line, the ALJ found Hill's concern with [DHEC's] current inability to pinpoint the location of the critical area line and escarpment as they existed on [Hill's] property prior to the completion of his bulkhead is misplaced. The ALJ stated Hill's violation is based on the measurements of the distance between the bulkhead and the escarpment, as set forth in the permit, and these measurements were documented by a DHEC employee during construction. [4] As to the permit drawings, the ALJ found Hill's permit was not ambiguous with regard to the size and location of his bulkhead. The ALJ observed, While the drawings showing the bulkhead's location are not clean, precise documents, nothing in those drawings contradicts the clear, precise, and specific language in the permit limiting the bulkhead to 110' in length and requiring the bulkhead to be no more than 1.5' from the existing escarpment. DHEC notes Hill's own expert witness, Dr. Wayne Beam, testified that the critical area line did not expire until November 6, 2003 due to an extension agreement, and this date was after the date construction of the bulkhead was completed. DHEC asserts section 48-39-210(B) of the South Carolina Code provides that an expired critical area plat does not affect DHEC's critical area jurisdiction. [5] In addition, DHEC asserts there is no indication that the location of the critical area line makes any difference that is favorable to Hill because the substantial evidence showed that, if the critical line has changed, the movement would be landward due to continuing erosion. Steve Brooks, DHEC's Chief of Enforcement and Compliance, testified that when he observed the bulkhead Hill was constructing, it was obviously significantly higher in elevation than the surrounding marsh area. Brooks stated the bulkhead was significantly . . . channelward of the location indicated on the critical area line shown on the plat and he confirm[ed] that the bulkhead was constructed in excess of the 1.5' channelward of the, in this case, the critical line or the bluff line, assuming the two are the same. Cindy Fitzgerald, an environmental manager with DHEC, testified she was the staff member who issued the Critical Area Permit to Hill. Fitzgerald conducted an inspection of Hill's bulkhead on July 24, 2003 during construction in response to an anonymous complaint and determined it was being built too far into the critical area. Fitzgerald documented the alleged violation with photographs showing that Spartina alterniflora, grass which is indicative of a critical area, had been cut down and destroyed landward of the bulkhead. She also took measurements every five feet to document that the bulkhead had exceeded the length and location requirements specified in the permit. We hold the ALJ's findings were supported by substantial evidence, and the fact that the circuit court might have disagreed with these findings does not prevent them from being supported by substantial evidence. The circuit court was not sitting as the fact-finder and under its limited scope of review, it erred in overturning the ALJ's findings that Hill's bulkhead did not comply with the terms of the permit that he had been issued.