Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448Unless exempted under division (v) of this subparagraph, buffers of at least 25 feet established pursuant to Part 6 of Article 5 of Chapter 5 of this title shall remain in force unless a variance is granted by the director as provided in this paragraph.
All projects covered under divisions (i), (ii), and (iii) of this subparagraph shall meet all criteria set forth in rules for specific variance criteria adopted by the board by December 31, 2004.
(Ga. L. 1975, p. 994, § 4; Ga. L. 1980, p. 942, § 3; Ga. L. 1989, p. 1295, § 3; Ga. L. 1990, p. 8, § 12; Ga. L. 1994, p. 1650, § 2; Ga. L. 1995, p. 10, § 12; Ga. L. 1995, p. 150, § 2; Ga. L. 2000, p. 1430, § 2; Ga. L. 2003, p. 224, § 5; Ga. L. 2004, p. 352, § 1; Ga. L. 2006, p. 72, § 12/SB 465; Ga. L. 2009, p. 619, § 1/SB 155; Ga. L. 2010, p. 523, § 1/HB 1359; Ga. L. 2012, p. 775, § 12/HB 942; Ga. L. 2015, p. 1051, §§ 2, 3/SB 101; Ga. L. 2016, p. 864, § 12/HB 737; Ga. L. 2017, p. 774, § 12/HB 323.)
The 2010 amendment, effective July 1, 2010, deleted "or" at the end of division (b)(15)(A)(iv), substituted "; or" for a period at the end of subdivision (b)(15)(A)(v)(IV) and added division (b)(15)(A)(vi).
The 2012 amendment, effective May 1, 2012, part of an Act to revise, modernize, and correct the Code, revised punctuation in division (b)(15)(C)(ii).
The 2015 amendment, effective December 1, 2015, substituted "paragraphs (16) and (17)" for "paragraph (16)" in division (b)(15)(A)(i); deleted "and" at the end of division (b)(15)(D)(ii); substituted "; and" for a period at the end of division (b)(16)(C)(ii); and added paragraph (b)(17).
The 2016 amendment, effective May 3, 2016, part of an Act to revise, modernize, and correct the Code, substituted "prior to" for "prior" twice in division (b)(17)(F)(ii).
The 2017 amendment, effective May 9, 2017, part of an Act to revise, modernize, and correct the Code, substituted "they cause a width of disturbance" for "cause a width of disturbance" near the end of the introductory language of subparagraph (b)(16)(C).
- Establishment of land-use regulations within districts generally, § 2-6-35.
Prohibition against cutting, harvesting, and other uses of sea oats, § 12-5-310 et seq.
- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1991, a misspelling of "vegetation" was corrected in paragraph (8) (now paragraph (b)(8)).
Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1996, "State Soil and Water Conservation Commission" was substituted for "Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission" near the end of subsection (b) and a comma was substituted for a semicolon following "are not feasible" in paragraph (b)(13).
Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2015, "December 31, 2015" was substituted for "the effective date of this Act" in division (b)(17)(F)(i), and "December 31, 2015," was twice substituted for "the effective date of this Act" in division (b)(17)(F)(ii).
Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2016, a comma was removed following "natural, undisturbed" in subparagraph (b)(16)(A).
- Ga. L. 2015, p. 1051, § 4/SB 101, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: "This Act shall become effective upon its approval by the Governor or upon its becoming law without such approval for purposes of promulgating rules and regulations and shall become effective on December 31, 2015, for all other purposes." This Act was signed by the Governor on May 6, 2015.
- For article on 2004 amendment of this Code section, see 21 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 8 (2004). For survey article on real property law, see 67 Mercer L. Rev. 193 (2015).
- Trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion in limine to exclude evidence relating to the defendant's violations of the Georgia Water Quality Control Act, O.C.G.A. § 12-5-20 et seq., and the Sedimentation Control Act, O.C.G.A. §§ 12-7-2 and12-7-6(a), because the evidence was relevant to the plaintiffs' negligence per se claims. Pulte Home Corp. v. Simerly, 322 Ga. App. 699, 746 S.E.2d 173 (2013).
- Trial court erred by concluding that an organization had standing to appeal a consent order between a property owner and the Director of the Environmental Protection Division (EPD) with regard to soil erosion as it lacked standing to appeal based upon its inability to demonstrate redressability as it failed to identify a procedural requirement the EPD violated, and the consent order did not fall within the categories of orders that required provision of notice and opportunity for comment. Ctr. for a Sustainable Coast, Inc. v. Turner, 324 Ga. App. 762, 751 S.E.2d 555 (2013).
Cited in Hughey v. JMS Dev. Corp., 78 F.3d 1523 (11th Cir. 1996); Coastal Marshlands Prot. Comm. v. Ctr. for a Sustainable Coast, 286 Ga. App. 518, 649 S.E.2d 619 (2007).
- City or county approved as an "issuing authority" for land-disturbing permits may not approve variances under paragraph 16 (now paragraph (b)(16)) of O.C.G.A. § 12-7-6. Only the Georgia Environmental Protection Division may approve vegetation buffer variances under the Erosion and Sedimentation Act, O.C.G.A. § 12-7-1 et seq. 1990 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 90-40.
- The 25 foot undisturbed natural vegetative buffer referenced in paragraph (16) of O.C.G.A. § 12-7-6 is normally to be retained adjacent to any state waters including, but not limited to, ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and coastal marshes. 1993 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 93-7.
- State is not required to seek and obtain permits for post-development stormwater handling and that a local government, even if certified as a local issuing authority, may not condition the issuance of a land disturbance permit to the state, or the state's contractors, on compliance with any requirements, including local post- development stormwater regulations, other than the requirements set forth in O.C.G.A. § 12-7-6(b) and the state general permit. Further, a local government may not require the state to enter into a stormwater facility maintenance agreement, either as a condition for issuance of a permit or for connecting to the local storm sewer. A local government may, however, require payment of a local stormwater management fee from the state before allowing a state construction project to connect to the local sewer system. 2013 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 13-3.
Total Results: 11
Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2016-03-11T00:00:00-08:00
Snippet: Supreme Court reversed Division 3 of our decision in Georgia River Network v. Turner, 328 Ga. App. 381 (762 SE2d 123) (2014), in which we held that the 25-foot buffer requirement of OCGA § 12-7-6 (b) (15) (A) applies to all state waters. Id. at 390-392 (3). In reversing, the Supreme Court concluded that, “OCGA § 12-7-6 (b) (15) (A) simply does not provide for the establishment of a buffer for state waters that are adjacent to banks without wrested vegetation.” 297 Ga. at 309 (footnote omitted). Accordingly
Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2016-02-23T00:00:00-08:00
Citation: 335 Ga. App. 760, 782 S.E.2d 850
Snippet: our Supreme Court reversed Division 3 of our decision in Ga. River Network v. Turner, 328 Ga. App. 381 (762 SE2d 123) (2014), in which we held that the 25-foot buffer requirement of OCGA § 12-7-6 (b) (15) (A) applies to all state waters. Id. at 390-392 (3). In reversing, the Supreme Court concluded: “OCGA § 12-7-6 (b) (15) (A) simply does not provide for the establishment of a buffer for state waters that are adjacent to banks without wrested vegetation.” 297 Ga. at 309 (footnote omitted). Accordingly
Court: Ga. | Date Filed: 2015-06-15T00:00:00-07:00
Snippet: Administrative Hearings. The ALJ overturned the variance, reasoning that OCGA § 12-7-6 (b) (15) (A) of the Erosion and Sedimentation Act requires a buffer for all state waters, including wetlands. The Director and Grady County filed appeals challenging the ALJ’s decision in the superior courts of Fulton County and Grady County, respectively. On the substantive issue of the construction and interpretation of OCGA § 12-7-6 (b) (15) (A),2 both trial courts determined that the Director’s construction
Court: Ga. | Date Filed: 2015-06-15T00:00:00-07:00
Citation: 297 Ga. 306, 773 S.E.2d 706
Snippet: Administrative Hearings. The ALJ overturned the variance, reasoning that OCGA § 12-7-6 (b) (15) (A) of the Erosion and Sedimentation Act requires a buffer for all state waters, including wetlands. The Director and Grady County filed appeals challenging the ALJ’s decision in the superior courts of Fulton County and Grady County, respectively. On the substantive issue of the construction and interpretation of OCGA § 12-7-6 (b) (15) (A),2 both trial courts determined that the Director’s construction
Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2014-07-31T00:00:00-07:00
Snippet: protect the land, water, air, and other resources of this state. OCGA § 12-7-2. The Erosion and Sedimentation Act provides that land-disturbing activities must conform with “best management practices.” OCGA § 12-7-6 (b). One of these practices is set forth in OCGA § 12-7-6 (b) (15), which states that “[t]here is established a 25[-]foot buffer along the banks of all state waters, as measured horizontally from the point where vegetation has been wrested by normal stream flow or wave action”
Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2014-07-16T00:00:00-07:00
Citation: 328 Ga. App. 381, 762 S.E.2d 123
Snippet: conserve and protect the land, water, air, and other resources of this state. OCGA § 12-7-2. The Erosion and Sedimentation Act provides that land-disturbing activities must conform with “best management practices.” OCGA § 12-7-6 (b). One of these practices is set forth in OCGA § 12-7-6 (b) (15), which states that “[t]here is established a 25[-]foot buffer along the banks of all state waters, as measured horizontally from the point where vegetation has been wrested by normal stream flow or wave action”
Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2013-11-15T00:00:00-08:00
Citation: 324 Ga. App. 762, 751 S.E.2d 555, 2013 Fulton County D. Rep. 3705
Snippet: state-wide comprehensive soil erosion and sediment control program to conserve and protect the land, water, air, and other resources of this state. OCGA § 12-7-2. *763The Act “established a 25 foot buffer along the banks of all state waters.” OCGA § 12-7-6 (b) (15) (A). Following its receipt of a complaint, the EPD investigated and determined that Toland constructed an approximately 170-foot long bulkhead in a salt-water marsh area within the 25-foot buffer without first requesting a variance pursuant
Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2013-07-08T00:00:00-07:00
Citation: 322 Ga. App. 699, 746 S.E.2d 173, 2013 Fulton County D. Rep. 2338
Snippet: accordance with a NPDES permit. 33 USC §§ 1311 (a), 1342. Similarly, a discharge of storm water runoff from construction activities where best management practices have not been properly implemented violates the Sedimentation Control Act. OCGA §§ 12-7-2; 12-7-6 (a). It is well settled that Georgia law allows the adoption of a statute or regulation as a standard of conduct so that its violation becomes negligence per se. See Rockefeller v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Ga., 251 Ga. App. 699, 702 (1) (554
Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2007-07-11T00:00:00-07:00
Citation: 649 S.E.2d 619, 286 Ga. App. 518
Snippet: sedimentation caused by storm water runoff into the marshlands is regulated by provisions in the Erosion and Sedimentation Act of 1975 (OCGA § 12-7-1 et seq.) which includes establishment of a 25-foot buffer along the banks of all state waters in OCGA § 12-7-6(b)(15)(A). Moreover, local zoning ordinances provide additional regulation of storm water runoff into marshlands. The CMPA recognizes the existence of these other regulations by requiring that a permit application include a letter from the local governing
Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2007-03-12T00:00:00-07:00
Citation: 643 S.E.2d 385, 284 Ga. App. 131, 2007 Fulton County D. Rep. 856
Snippet: project. The State Erosion and Sedimentation Act requires at least a 25-foot buffer to be cleared by hand on each side of a warm water stream, and at least a 50-foot buffer for trout streams, within which vegetation must be cleared by hand. OCGA § 12-7-6(b)(15), (16). *388 Georgia Power's environmental supervisor testified that whether to widen the buffer was a judgment call on his part, and he did so here because he determined that the stream running through this project was sensitive. He put flags
Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1999-06-11T00:00:00-07:00
Citation: 513 S.E.2d 6, 236 Ga. App. 850
Snippet: conscious indifference to consequences in designing or failing to maintain or repair the subdivision's drainage system.[14] *10 Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part. BLACKBURN and BARNES, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] OCGA § 12-7-1 et seq. [2] OCGA § 12-7-6. [3] See Horney v. Panter, 204 Ga.App. 474, 476(2), 420 S.E.2d 8 (1992). [4] A witness knowledgeable of the facts, even though not an expert, may give his opinion as to whether or not there has been an increase in the flow of water onto property