Opinion ID: 1599164
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: ¶ 2. Casino World and Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission applied to the CMR to amend the use plan at a site on the north shore of St. Louis Bay from general to industrial and to issue a permit for a casino resort. Four community groups, objected to the application. On July 16, 1996, CMR granted the requested plan change and permit. Between July 20 and July 30, 1996, several individuals and groups, including the appellants, filed requests for reconsideration of CMR's decision as authorized by the Coastal Program. CMR notified the appellants that the petitions for reconsideration would be brought before the Commission at its next meeting on August 20, 1996. ¶ 3. On August 13, 1996, pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 49-27-37, the Department of Marine Resources (DMR) mailed the permit to Casino World and Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission. DMR notified the recipients of the permit, As you are aware, the Commission action approving this project is the subject of a Commission reconsideration scheduled for August 20, 1996. DMR did not mail a copy of the permit to the appellants. ¶ 4. On August 20, 1996, CMR voted to deny reconsideration of its decision. At the same meeting, CMR adopted a written statement entitled Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with Respect to Approval of the Application of Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission and Casino World Permit Application for an Adjustment to the Coastal Wetlands Use Plan and Wetlands Permit. The statement read, It is therefore ordered that the wetlands permit be granted and the conditional I designation of the permit site shall become effective upon execution of these findings. ¶ 5. On September 18, 1996, appellants filed their notice of appeal, thirty-six days after the Department of Marine Resources mailed the permit to the Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission, Casino World, Inc., Cathy Mallette, Ronald Krizman of the COE, and Jim Morris of the DEQ. Casino World and Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely. CMR did not join the motion. On December 30, 1996, the chancellor granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the appeal time commenced with the issuance of the permit, rather than with the final decision of CMR to deny reconsideration. The appeal to this Court was timely perfected. The appellants frame their assignments of error as follows: 1. The lower court erred in holding that the time for appeal commenced before CMR's order became final. 2. Appellants properly and justifiably followed CMR's regulations for reconsideration and appeal, and therefore the appeal was timely filed. 3. The lower court erred in disregarding Appellants' duty to exhaust their administrative remedies before appealing the CMR's decision. 4. Section 49-27-39 begins the time for appeal from the mailing of the CMR order of issuance of the permit, and CMR failed to mail the permit to Appellants. Issues 1, 2, and 3 are inextricably intertwined. The basis of these assignments is that the chancellor below erred in dismissing appellants' appeal as untimely, because 1) the appellants had not yet exhausted their administrative remedies before filing and 2) the appellants followed CMR's regulations for reconsideration and appeal. Accordingly, we address the first three assignments of error together.