Monday, November 17, 2008
News State Supreme Court sides with Cumberland Harbor developers
Posted by Thomas Wheatley @thomaswheatley on Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 3:36 PM
The Georgia Supreme Court has ruled that a still-incomplete 1,014-acre project across the harbor from historic Cumberland Island does not have to adhere to state-ordered environmental standards for the area.
In a 5-2 decision, the court ruled that the 1970 Coastal Marshlands Protection Act does not extend to "residential upland areas." A coalition of environmental and conservation groups sued because they said the development would increase polluted stormwater into marshlands and endanger marine life. The residential portion of the project should have been considered during the permitting process that gave the greenlight to docks and marinas in the harbor.
A dash of irony — Land Resource, the builder of the Cumberland Harbor development, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection late last month. The future of the project is unknown.
To read the court's ruling summary, follow the jump.
CENTER FOR A SUSTAINABLE COAST ET AL. V. COASTAL MARSHLANDS PROTECTION COMMITTEE ET AL. (S07G1745)
In a 5-to-2 vote, the Supreme Court of Georgia has sided with developers who plan to build a 1,014-acre project across the harbor from Cumberland Island. At issue in this appeal is whether the Court of Appeals was correct to conclude that although the 1970 Coastal Marshlands Protection Act regulates construction of structures in the marsh, it does not regulate residential development on higher ground away from the marsh in what are called “upland areas.”
In today’s majority opinion, written by Justice Harris Hines, the high court has ruled that the Court of Appeals got it right.
In 2005, the Coastal Marshlands Protection Committee issued a permit to Point Peter to build three docks on Point Peter Creek and two marinas on the St. Mary’s and North Rivers. The structures are part of Point Peter’s Cumberland Harbour development in St. Mary’s, which is also designed to include up to 1200 homes.
The Center for a Sustainable Coast and several other environmental groups sued in Fulton County Superior Court to stop the development, claiming the committee had ignored the law by failing to regulate the adjoining residential development, which could contribute pollutants to the marshlands through storm water runoff. An administrative law judge agreed. He affirmed portions of the permit that placed conditions on the marina and dock facilities, but he reversed other portions, ruling that the committee also had to regulate any upland development that could hurt the marshlands. In 2007, the Court of Appeals reversed his decision, ruling that nothing in the law suggests that the committee has jurisdiction over anything but development in the marsh. The environmentalists then appealed to the Supreme Court.
In today’s majority opinion, the Supreme Court finds that the Coastal Marshlands Protection Committee’s authority does not extend to the residential upland areas. If it did, “even an upland project located miles from the marshlands, would have to undergo the permitting process if it could be shown that storm water runoff from the project would affect the marshlands,” the opinion says.
Joining in the majority are Justices Robert Benham, George Carley, Hugh Thompson and Harold Melton.
In her dissent, Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears writes that the superior court jumped into the case before it should have, and the Court of Appeals’ opinion should be vacated. Under the Georgia Administrative Procedure Act, the superior court lacked the authority to review an agency action until there was a final decision in the matter. “First, the research submitted to the Committee on the impacts to marine life, wildlife, and other resources…was not yet final,” says the dissent, joined by Presiding Justice Carol Hunstein. “Second, the Committee did not consider or analyze the impact on the marshlands’ delicate ecosystem of funneling an additional 17-23 million gallons of polluted stormwater runoff directly into the marshlands…” As a result, “review at the agency level is obviously not yet complete.”
Attorneys for Appellants (Center): Stephen O’Day, James Grode, Christopher DeScherer
Attorneys for Appellee (Committee): Thurbert Baker, Attorney General, Isaac Byrd, Dep. A.G., John Hennelly, Sr. Asst. A.G., James Coots, Asst. A.G., Jim Chamberlin, Spec. Asst. A.G., Attorneys for Committee
Latest in Fresh Loaf
-
First Slice 2/17/12: Caterpillar's building a Georgia factory?
Official says plant will be located near Athens, create 1,400 jobs
-
5 things today: The Bodyguard, Kronos Quartet
Cineprov screens The Bodyguard and more
-
'Ex-gays' gather outside Atlanta this weekend 7
Meanwhile human rights groups fight the notion that "ex-gay" is a thing
- More »
Author Archives
-
Airport recommends Varsity, Varasano's, Real Chow Baby, other local eateries get spots in aviation hub 12
Council meeting underway to discuss lucrative proposals
-
Cobb County pols want transportation tax to fund I-75/575 project, not transit 18
Proposal comes just months before public is scheduled to vote on $7 billion tax
- More »
Comments (0)