This case involves the Coastal Marshlands Protection Committee’s “CMPC” issuance of a permit to a developer to build a dock over State-owned marshlands, pursuant to the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act OCGA § 12-5-280 et seq.. After the permit was issued, Altamaha Riverkeeper, Inc. “ARK” challenged the CMPC’s decision in a hearing before an administrative law judge “ALJ”. The developer intervened in the matter, and when the ALJ affirmed the issuance of the permit, ARK sought superior court review of the ALJ’s decision. In Case No. A10A0775, the CMPC appeals the superior court’s order reversing the ALJ’s decision and remanding the matter for rehearing, arguing that the court erred in finding that the burden of proof imposed on ARK by the ALJ was contrary to law. In Case No. A10A0776, First Southern National Bank, Montgomery Bank & Trust, Citizens Bank of Swainsboro, and Bank of Soperton “Intervenors”, who became real parties in interest after foreclosing on the developer’s property, appeal the court’s decision on the same grounds. Because these two appeals involve the same parties, set of facts, and principles of law, we consolidate them for review. However, because we lack jurisdiction over both appeals, they must be dismissed. The record shows that in 2007, Mid-Roc, LLC applied to the CMPC for a permit to build a community dock over State marshlands along the South Newport River in McIntosh County, pursuant to OCGA § 12-5-286 a of the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act. Under OCGA § 12-5-286 g of that statute, in passing upon the application for a permit, the CMPC must consider the public interest by determining: 1 Whether or not unreasonably harmful obstruction to or alteration of the natural flow of navigational water within the affected area will arise as a result of the proposal; 2 Whether or not unreasonably harmful or increased erosion, shoaling of channels, or stagnant areas of water will be created; and 3 Whether or not the granting of a permit and the completion of the applicant’s proposal will unreasonably interfere with the conservation of fish, shrimp, oysters, crabs, clams, or other marine life, wildlife, or other resources, including but not limited to water and oxygen supply. In addition, the permit applicant has the responsibility to demonstrate to the CMPC that the proposed alteration is not contrary to the public interest and that no feasible alternative sites exist. OCGA § 12-5-286 h.
On November 30, 2007, after holding three separate hearings on the application, the CMPC unanimously approved it and issued a permit to Mid-Roc to construct the proposed dock. 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 e seq., contending that the permit failed to meet the requirements outlined in OCGA § § 12-5-286 g and h. Mid-Roc filed a motion to intervene pursuant to OCGA § 50-13-14 1, which the ALJ granted. At the de novo hearing before the ALJ, ARK, as challengers to the permit, bore the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the permit was wrongfully issued. See Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.07 1 b and r. 616-1-2-.21 3 —4. After the hearing, the ALJ issued a final decision, affirming the CMPC’s grant of the permit based on her findings that ARK had failed to meet its burden.
