The primary issue presented in these appeals is whether the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act CMPA OCGA § 12-5-280 et seq., enacted in 1970 to protect coastal marshlands by regulation of activities and structures in the marshlands, may be construed to regulate activities or structures in high land or upland1 areas, including storm water runoff from those areas, that may adversely impact the marshlands. These appeals arise from an application filed by a residential developer, Point Peter LLLP, seeking a permit under the CMPA to construct marina and dock facilities on or over state-owned coastal marshlands and water bottoms2 as part of the Cumberland Harbor residential development located on Point Peter peninsula in the city of St. Mary’s. Acting pursuant to the CMPA, the Coastal Marshlands Protection Committee the Committee3 issued a permit authorizing Point Peter to construct the marina and dock facilities subject to various conditions. 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 actions in a hearing before an administrative law judge ALJ in accordance with the Georgia Administrative Procedure Act APA OCGA § 50-13-1 et seq.. The petition challenged the permit on various grounds including the contention that the Committee failed to properly apply the CMPA to protect the marshlands because it failed to regulate Point Peter’s adjoining upland residential development, including pollutants carried into the marshlands by storm water runoff generated by the residential development. Point Peter intervened in the administrative proceedings pursuant to OCGA § 50-13-14 1, a hearing was held, and the ALJ issued a final decision on February 20, 2006.5 The ALJ affirmed portions of the permit that placed conditions on the marina and dock facilities, but reversed and remanded other portions of the permit for further consideration by the Committee. One basis for the remand was that the CMPA required the Committee to regulate any feature of Point Peter’s upland development that may adversely alter the marshlands, including storm water runoff from the upland residential areas in the Cumberland Harbor development.
Within 30 days after the ALJ’s decision, the Committee and Point Peter filed petitions seeking superior court judicial review of the ALJ’s decision pursuant to OCGA § § 12-5-283 b and 50-13-19 b. On the 46th day after the ALJ’s decision, the Challengers also filed a petition seeking superior court judicial review of the decision.6 The ALJ’s decision was subsequently affirmed by operation of law when the Fulton County Superior Court did not act on the petitions within the time limit set forth in OCGA § 12-2-1 c. Pursuant to our grant of applications for discretionary appeals, the Committee Case No. A07A0752 and Point Peter Case No. A07A0897 appeal from the superior court’s affirmance by operation of law of the ALJ’s decision. In Case Nos. A07A0753 and A07A0934, the Challengers also appeal from the superior court’s affirmance in identical cross-appeals to the appeals filed by the Committee and Point Peter.
