Notes from Coastal Marinas and Community Docks Town Hall Meeting
May 23, 2005
Brunswick, GA

Think about the positive attributes of community docks and marinas: what is working well (permitting, siting, decision-making, accessibility to information, availability of access to water, recreation, etc.)?
1. The CMPA is working well (for 35 years).  The pre-emptive negotiating process is working well (in most cases).  The preamble to the law is good but there is a legal question as to how connected the preamble is to the law itself.  [Discussion: the preamble is not part of the law, only an explanation, however, some judges include the preamble as law when making decisions.  There have been several court cases about this, so the law should now be clear.]
2. The positive attribute of community docks and marinas is general access to the public and private property owners.  Additional regulation and difficult permitting processes work well to discourage public access and use.
3. Continue requiring permits for marinas, community docks with a meaningful discussion / consideration of applications.
4. You are able to discuss permitting with staffthey are accessible.  Permits are granted even if it takes a while.  In some cases the community docks reduce the desire for multiple individual docks.  Corp of Engineers [is] expeditious in doing its job.  When the law is considered, it can protect the marsh.
5. Continue the encouragement of community docks/marinas.  Common access point to the water is preferable to the haphazard accumulation of private docks.
6. Inexpensive, simple public access to coastal waterways
7. The law was created to protect the marsh as a vital area of the state for all people.

What is not working well; what would you change if you could (permitting, siting, decision-making, accessibility to information, availability of access to water, recreation, etc.)?
1. Groups that appeal should be held accountable for costs and expenses to the landowner.  A bond should be required to appeal.
2. Regulating private property owners access to waterways from their own property is a taking of rights.  If a developer decides to provide a community dock, it should have no bearing on what a private property owner is allowed to build.  What does the DNR consider "encouragement"?  Delays, permit fees, additional permit requirements, etc.
3. Access is a moving target and application of standards is inconsistent.
4. Parties, which do not have a vested interest in waterfront development, should not have a voice in the permitting process.  A solid example of this is student law groups who use this as an opportunity for exercising legal procedures.
5. No consistency, need to develop a definite criteria that remains consistent.  If the application is in compliance with the regulations, then why does it need to go before the committee?  No real consideration of the impact of docks or marsh ecosystem.  There is no defined criteria for planning of marinas or community docks, size of facilities, services provided, upland development criteria associated with dock and marina sites all remain undefined and subject to individual staff interpretations.  Contrary to what Susan said, individual dock permitting is tied to marina and community dock permitting and subject to individual staff member judgment.  Need to define criteria.
6. Action on applications has not been within 30-day time frame
7. The application process needs to be simplified.  The timeline for consideration of the permit and approval is vague and too long.  There remains a question as to how far the CMP committee can go in evaluating the upland aspects of the development.  To change this for the better, we'd want more specifics in the law with respect to the 3rd sentence above.  Staff needs to be increased if necessary to process permits in a timely manner.  Need to have some guidance on siting as per size of waterway & size of facility.  Permit Processneeds to be a guide for developers in each county (How to Guide) to guide people thru County/City & State & Federal Permits required.  Bryan County has one that was developed under a grant specific to that county.  Each Coastal County needs one that includes docks/marinas.  From a Federal Standpoint, there is a disconnect between State & Federal permitting.  Should be a process that proceeds together with joint meetings with pertinent state & federal agencies, particularly on larger developments with large community docks and marinas.  This will lead to less appeals & lawsuits at both levels.  As soon as federal agencies get a good partner to work with at the state CRD, they get moved to other jobs.
8. No real consideration of the impact of docks on the marsh ecosystem.  No attempt to assess cumulative impacts.  [Discussion: Florida and South Carolina have data on marshes.  Georgia needs permitting datahow many docks have been permittedin order to attempt to assess what impact docks might have.]
9. The permitting process issues permits for large marinas and community facilities without limiting the construction of private docks.  The state has the ability to limit private docks under state law.
10. No limits on the size of permitted docks means some projects that make no practical sense are permitted, i.e. very long docks 1500 feet and longer that have to look hard for the water.
11. There is little appreciation of the fact that (by law and under the State Constitution) water bottoms belong to all the people of Georgia.  Proximity to or ownership of waterfront property does not confer some special standing above anybody else.
12. The statute requires the state to assess the fair market value for water bottoms leases.  Currently the state charges $1,000/acre, which simply doesn't represent fair market value. The state needs to reassess the amount it charges for its leases.  [Discussion: there should be no fee at all.  But state law forbids gratuities.  Who would be assessing fair market value?  There is a process underway to determine that involving professional assessors, the Marine Business Association, and the Coastal Marshlands Protection Committee.  Fees and rising property taxes will put marina owners out of business; condos will end up being built on the land, blocking access for everyone.]
13. Timely appeals and permitting processes cause increased expenses to development.  A fixed time frame for this process would help control costs for seller and buyer.
14. By considering projects on a case-by-case basis, the committee misses the cumulative impacts of all projects, effectively missing the forest for the trees.
15. Scope of facility is driven by applicant's preferred profit margin, rather than parameters set by CMPA.
16. The staff does not address public questions and comments.  Process contains uncertainties, which lead to delays.  A clear process would better service all parties.
17. In answer to 11.  A Kings grant should grant the current owner access and ownership because to kings law was made prior to state law.
18. The state needs to ensure that projects do not unreasonably interfere with threatened endangered species, including manatees, sea turtles, and right whales.
19. Science is rarely part of the consideration.
20. Consideration of all a project's impacts on marsh, not just the footprint of structure in marsh.
21. Too often decisions about the project's land use that will impact the marsh are already made.  Properties have been sold and changes cannot be made.
22. Need greater recognition that the marsh belongs to all citizens, not just those with enough money to buy marsh front
23. The impact on fisheries and fishermen is never considered
24. Not enough staff to adequately address permit issues in a timely manner
25. Greater concern about developers making their desired economic goals than about protecting the public resource
26. Destroying property values of neighbors through large marinas and docks out of scale with existing uses is wrong and should be considered the biggest taking of private property rights.

What should the state's interest be in managing the use of the state's tidal water bottoms for marinas and community docks?
1. Their only interest should be to ensure that there are no blockages of navigable waterways.
2. The state should limit regulation to the consideration of projects, which are damaging to the environment rather than the concerns of activist groups, which have personal agendas.
3. State charged with protecting the resource so they have to regulate the use of water bottoms.
4. State required to protect the resource.
5. State owns the tidal water bottoms as a matter of law.  It should manage those areas to best comply with the existing law and the interest of all its citizens.
6. The State should protect the resources without infringing on an individuals private property rights that are guaranteed by the constitution of the United States of America
7. The water bottoms are a public resource and the state should be encouraging access rather than discouraging.
8. The state should continue to protect the natural resources that provide economic benefits to the state, including recreational and commercial fisheries.  The salt marsh system is a critically important nursery area for these fisheries.
9. The state should ensure that impacts to vital areas of the state (which includes water bottoms) are minimized wherever possible.  Undervaluation of these areas, or granting their use gratis, provides no incentives for developers to design with minimization in mind.  This puts CRD staff in the position of trying to reason with applicants.  Let fair market valuation provide the argument.
10. State's interest should be insuring that the applicants use conforms to established development criteria.  Also that the public has access to the water
11. The CMPA declares that the state's salt marsh is a "vital" area of the state.  This designation makes clear that the General Assembly protects the natural resources for all citizen of the state.
12. If developers make money from docks and marinas they should be charged appropriately.
13. Protecting the state's tidal bottoms for all citizens should be the priority.
14. The public will have access to the water one way (boat ramps, etc.) or another.  DNR should not be doing anything that slows the process for developers who want to do it right.
15. They should insure that fishermen are not run out of business by developers.
16. Developers are charged appropriately by paying federal and state taxes
17. State must consider the known and unknown resources now and in the future.
18. State should be preserving existing marinas as examples of good public resource stewardship (UGA clean marina program)
19. Water bottoms provide little tax base value until the marina is built
20. We do not need a group called the River Bottom Keepers

What are the most critical factors that should be used in locating and sizing marinas and community docks?
1. Size of waterway, scope of use
2. Re.  #1: maximizing the usefulness
3. Impact on the marsh ecosystem
4. That waterways ability to accommodate the proposed marina (under current regulations that don't need to be added to) and the developers ability to pay for it
5. Size of waterway
6. Land use associated with the development of marinas and its impact on the marsh ecosystem
7. Impact on sensitive species
8. Ongoing dredging requirements
9. Impacts on existing fisheries, i.e. will new docks make it impossible to continue crabbing in a particular area?  [Discussion: clarifying impact: does the marina add pollution?  Cant put a crab pot within 100 ft. of a dock, so if you put a marina in the middle of a crabbing area, its a big impact.  The water quality in some rivers is already bad, and a marina might make it worse.  DNR warns against eating too many crabs from Turtle River, yet theyre crabbed commercially.]
10. Number of other marinas, community docks and private docks in the vicinity
11. Let the designers and engineers do their work in compliance with state law
12. Proximity to delicate marine wildlife that could be negatively affected
13. Protecting the water body, marshes, wildlife and marine life for the benefit of all Georgians.
14. Location and capacity for other facilities in the area
15. Whether permitting a new facility will negatively and unfairly impact existing property owners
16. Protecting commercial and recreational facilities as well as the private property rights of adjoining landowners.
17. Will the marina be available for the public to use or will it only be available for people with enough money to buy into the new developments?
18. Protecting the public's insight to engage the state's marshlands for current and future generations.
19. Don't use the # of lots or anticipated economic demand, if someone is willing to take the risk in the investment let them.
20. The location and size of a marina should balance the desires of the owners with the context in which it is built, including the adjacent area, the demand in the area and the impact on resources, shared by all Georgia's citizens.
21. In some cases a marina facility can provide a wake barrier, which preserves areas prone to wake erosion so the size and configuration should factor this.
22. Don't use storm water regs, etc., width of buffer on upland
23. Re. #17: private property owner retains the rights to sell any property at "fair market value"; to whom might be able to afford it is irrelevant
24. That depends on whether you are a socialist or a constitutionalist!!!  Re. #17
25. Density of docks on a given shoreline.  *Size of proposed facility.  *Determine cumulative impact of numbers of docks in an area.  *Consider the size of the waterway.  *Consider water quality and impact from marina.