O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 12-5-283 (2019)

Coastal Marshlands Protection Committee created;

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

members; powers; per diem and expenses; administrative hearings and review; permits for minor alterations. (a) There is created the Coastal Marshlands Protection Committee to be composed of five members. The commissioner of natural resources and four persons selected by the board shall be the members of this committee. Each of three persons selected by the board shall be a resident of Camden, Glynn, McIntosh, Liberty, Bryan, or Chatham County. Three members of the committee shall constitute a quorum. The committee shall issue all orders and shall grant, deny, revoke, and amend all permits and leases provided for by this part. The members of the committee shall be entitled to reimbursement of actual expenses and mileage together with a per diem as set by the board to be paid out of funds appropriated for use by the department. (b) Any person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by any order or action of the committee shall, upon petition within 30 days after the issuance of such order or the taking of such action, have a right to a hearing before an administrative law judge appointed by the board. The hearing before the administrative law judge shall be conducted in accordance with Chapter 13 of Title 50, the ‘‘Georgia Administrative Procedure Act,’’ and the rules and regulations adopted by the board pursuant thereto. The decision of the administrative law judge shall constitute the final decision of the board and any party to the hearing, including the committee, shall have the right of judicial review thereof in accordance with Chapter 13 of Title 50. (c) Persons are ‘‘aggrieved or adversely affected’’ where the challenged action has caused or will cause them injury in fact and where the injury is to an interest within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by this part. In the event the committee asserts in response to the petition before the administrative law judge that the petitioner is not aggrieved or adversely affected, the administrative law judge shall take evidence and hear arguments on this issue and thereafter make a ruling on this issue before continuing with the hearing. The burden of going forward with evidence on this issue shall rest with the petitioner. (d) Any permit for minor alteration of the marshlands may be issued by the commissioner based on the recommendations of staff, past committee actions, and the results of public comments. The commissioner may refer the application to the committee to decide on permits for minor alterations that, in his judgment, should receive broader

CONSERVATION & NATURAL RES.

consideration. A committee member may choose to have the full committee decide on permit applications for minor alterations that the member feels should receive broader consideration.

History

Ga. L. 1972, p. 1015, § 17; Ga. L. 1973, p. 564, § 1; Code 1981, § 12-5-282; Ga. L. 1984, p. 404, § 5; Ga. L. 1985, p. 1465, § 3; Ga. L. 1989, p. 574, § 2; Code 1981, § 12-5-283, as redesignated by Ga. L. 1992, p. 2294, § 1; Ga. L. 2004, p. 400, § 2.

Annotations

Code Commission notes. - Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1989, a comma was inserted following ‘‘Act’’ in the second sentence of subsection (b). Administrative rules and regulations. - Procedures for disposition of

contested cases, Official Compilation of the Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection, Subject 391-1-2. Law reviews. - For article surveying Georgia cases dealing with environment, natural resources, and land use from June 1977 through May 1978, see 30 Mercer L. Rev. 75 (1978). For annual survey of law on administrative law, see 62 Mercer L. Rev. 1 (2010).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Board may not further review decisions of committee. Department of Natural Resources v. American Cyanamid Co., 239 Ga. 740, 238 S.E.2d 886 (1977). Landowners not entitled to a hearing regarding neighbors’ planned dock. - Landowners’ claims against the state for declaratory judgment, mandamus, an unconstitutional taking, and due process and equal protection violations, all arising out of the issuance of a license to their neighbors to build a private dock in a coastal marshland area, all failed. The Coastal Marshlands Protection Act did not apply to a private dock, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 12-5-295(7); therefore, the landowners were not entitled to a hearing under the Act pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 12-5-283(b) and the Administrative Procedure Act, O.C.G.A. §§ 50-13-13(a) and 50-13-2(2). Hitch v. Vasarhelyi, 302 Ga. App. 381, 691 S.E.2d 286 (2010). Permit improperly reversed. - Trial court reviewing an administrative law judge’s (ALJ) decision affirming the issuance of a permit to build a dock over marshlands, under the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act of 1970, O.C.G.A. § 12-5-280 et seq., by the Coastal Marshlands Protection Committee (Committee)

erroneously reversed the decision because the court focused on the Committee’s decision, instead of deciding whether the ALJ correctly affirmed the Committee’s decision, since the ALJ conducted a de novo review of the Committee’s decision at which new evidence could be received. Coastal Marshlands Prot. Comm. v. Altamaha Riverkeeper, Inc., 315 Ga. App. 510, 726 S.E.2d 539 (2012). Marshlands boundary correctly determined. - Relevant marshlands boundary was where the boundary lay before the owner began the owner’s second construction activity in March 2009, because the owner’s 2008 excavation had created additional tide-influenced areas; since the second replacement bulkhead encroached on jurisdictional marshlands, the March 2016 removal order was affirmed. C&M Enters. of Ga., LLC v. Williams, 346 Ga. App. 79, 816 S.E.2d 44 (2018), cert. denied, No. S18C1407, 2019 Ga. LEXIS 52 (Ga. 2019). Cited in Coastal Marshlands Prot. Comm. v. Ctr. for a Sustainable Coast, 286 Ga. App. 518, 649 S.E.2d 619 (2007); Ctr. for a Sustainable Coast, Inc. v. Ga. Dep’t of Natural Res., 319 Ga. App. 205, 734 S.E.2d 206 (2012).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 2 Am. Jur. 2d, Administrative Law, § 349.

C.J.S. - 73A C.J.S., Public Administrative Law and Procedure, §§ 375 et seq.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 2007–2018 · leading case: Coastal Marshlands Prot. Comm. v. Ctr. for a Sustainable Coast, 649 S.E.2d 619 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Coastal Marshlands Prot. Comm. v. Ctr. for a Sustainable Coast, 649 S.E.2d 619 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 20× “Following the Committee’s action, the Center for a Sustainable Coast, the Georgia River Network, and the Satilla Riverwatch Alliance (the Challengers), 4 as “aggrieved or adversely affected” persons under OCGA § 12-5-283 (b) and (c), filed a petition to challenge the Committee’s…”
Ctr. for a Sustainable Coast v. Coastal Marshlands Prot. Comm., 670 S.E.2d 429 (Ga. 2008). · cites it 12× “See OCGA § 12-5-283. In 2005, the Committee issued a permit to Point Peter, LLLP, a residential developer, which authorized Point Peter to construct and maintain three community day docks and two full service marinas on certain marshlands as part of a 1,014 acre residential…”
Ctr. for a Sustainable Coast, Inc. v. Georgia Dep't of Nat. Resources, 734 S.E.2d 206 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “Compare OCGA § 12-5-283 (d) (granting commissioner authority to permit minor alterations to marshlands under Coastal Marshlands Protection Act).”
DBL, INC. v. Carson, 645 S.E.2d 56 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “OCGA§§ 12-5-283; 12-5-291. 5 See Inter-City Coach Lines v.”
Coastal Marshlands Prot. Comm. v. Altamaha Riverkeeper, Inc., 726 S.E.2d 539 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 12-5-283 (b). The Office of State Administrative Hearings (“OSAH”) adjudicates contested cases on behalf of the Department of Natural Resources.”
Hitch v. Vasarhelyi, 680 S.E.2d 411 (Ga. 2009). · cites it 4× “” OCGA § 12-5-283 (c). However, the Act specifically exempts a single-family dock such as that permitted by the State in this case.”
Coastal Marshlands Prot. Comm. v. Altamaha Riverkeeper, Inc., 695 S.E.2d 273 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “Shortly thereafter, ARK, as an “aggrieved or adversely affected” party under OCGA § 12-5-283 (b) and (c), petitioned the Office of Administrative Hearings for a review of the permit in accordance with the Georgia Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) (OCGA § 50-13-1 et seq.”
C&M Enter. of Georgia, LLC v. Williams., 816 S.E.2d 44 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 10× “Within thirty days after the March 2016 order, which for the first time directed C&M to remove the second replacement bulkhead and backfill according to the April 2008 JD line, C&M filed a petition for a hearing before an ALJ pursuant to OCGA § 12-5-283 (b).”
Hitch v. Vasarhelyi, 691 S.E.2d 286 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “8 OCGA § 12-5-283 (b). 9 OCGA § 12-5-295 (7).”
Ctr. for a Sustainable Coast, Inc. v. Ga Dnr (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “According to the Respondents, the crux of the Center’s claim was its request for a declaratory judgment and that all other counts in the complaint flowed from the contention that the issuance of letters of permission were ultra vires acts.”
— 12-5-283(a) — 2 cases
Ctr. for a Sustainable Coast v. Coastal Marshlands Prot. Comm., 670 S.E.2d 429 (Ga. 2008). “See OCGA § 12-5-283. In 2005, the Committee issued a permit to Point Peter, LLLP, a residential developer, which authorized Point Peter to construct and maintain three community day docks and two full service marinas on certain marshlands as part of a 1,014 acre residential…”
Coastal Marshlands Prot. Comm. v. Ctr. for a Sustainable Coast, 649 S.E.2d 619 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). “Following the Committee’s action, the Center for a Sustainable Coast, the Georgia River Network, and the Satilla Riverwatch Alliance (the Challengers), 4 as “aggrieved or adversely affected” persons under OCGA § 12-5-283 (b) and (c), filed a petition to challenge the Committee’s…”
— 12-5-283(b) — 2 cases
Coastal Marshlands Prot. Comm. v. Ctr. for a Sustainable Coast, 649 S.E.2d 619 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). “Following the Committee’s action, the Center for a Sustainable Coast, the Georgia River Network, and the Satilla Riverwatch Alliance (the Challengers), 4 as “aggrieved or adversely affected” persons under OCGA § 12-5-283 (b) and (c), filed a petition to challenge the Committee’s…”
Ctr. for a Sustainable Coast v. Coastal Marshlands Prot. Comm., 670 S.E.2d 429 (Ga. 2008). “See OCGA § 12-5-283. In 2005, the Committee issued a permit to Point Peter, LLLP, a residential developer, which authorized Point Peter to construct and maintain three community day docks and two full service marinas on certain marshlands as part of a 1,014 acre residential…”
— 12-5-283(c) — 1 case
Hitch v. Vasarhelyi, 680 S.E.2d 411 (Ga. 2009). “” OCGA § 12-5-283 (c). However, the Act specifically exempts a single-family dock such as that permitted by the State in this case.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.