This Court granted certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Coastal Marshlands Protection Committee v. Center for a Sustainable Coast , 286 Ga. App. 518 649 SE2d 619 2007 “CMPC v. CSC “, to determine whether the Court of Appeals correctly construed the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act, OCGA § 12-5-280 et seq. “CMPA”, as it relates to the regulation of certain activities in upland areas in conjunction with the regulation of activities in the marshlands. Finding that the Court of Appeals properly held that regulation under the CMPA does not extend to residential activities in upland areas, we affirm.1 Under the CMPA, the Coastal Marshlands Protection Committee “Committee” considers permit applications for projects in coastal marshlands. The Committee was created by the CMPA and is composed of the Commissioner of Natural Resources and four other persons selected by the Board of Natural Resources. 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 development. The permit included various conditions designed to avoid unreasonable adverse impact to the marshlands.
The Center for a Sustainable Coast and other organizations collectively “CSC” challenged the permit on a variety of grounds, including that the Committee failed to regulate the upland portions of Point Peter’s development. An administrative law judge “ALJ” agreed with CSC as to this ground, and, inter alia, remanded this permit issue to the Committee for further consideration. The Committee and Point Peter sought review in the Superior Court of Fulton County, which did not act upon the matter in the time specified by statute, and the ALJ’s decision was affirmed by operation of law. See OCGA § 12-2-1 c. The Committee and Point Peter then sought, and were granted, discretionary appeal in the Court of Appeals, which affirmed in part and reversed in part the ALJ’s decision, holding that the permitting power of the Committee did not extend to regulating residential upland portions of the development. See CMPC v. CSC , supra. Further factual and procedural details can be found in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. Id.
