SB 135, the "Coastal Island Preservation Act," would add a new section to Georgia law making it unlawful to construct, assemble, or otherwise erect a new single-family residential structure on certain coastal islands that are not accessible by bridge if the structure exceeds the square footage of the largest existing single-family residence on that island as of July 11, 1995. The bill is framed as a preservation measure intended to protect the cultural heritage, natural resources, environment, and "vital areas" of the state.
In practical terms, the bill would impose a size cap on new single-family homes on qualifying unbridged coastal islands, using a historical benchmark tied to the largest home existing on each island in 1995. It does not appear to regulate all development on those islands, but specifically targets new residential construction above the specified threshold. The bill also includes a standard repeal of conflicting laws and a short title for citation purposes.
Impact
The bill would amend Title 12 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated by adding a new Code section to the chapter governing parks, historic areas, memorials, and recreation. Its effect would be to restrict future residential development on certain Georgia coastal islands that lack bridge access, limiting the size of new single-family homes and thereby affecting landowners, developers, builders, and local real estate markets on those islands. By tying the limit to the largest existing structure as of July 11, 1995, the bill would create a fixed historical baseline for enforcement.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text alone and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the measure appears to be presented in a preservation-oriented, environmentally protective frame. The stated purpose emphasizes conservation of cultural heritage and natural resources, suggesting support from advocates of coastal preservation and growth management. No formal voting history or transcript is available here to show broader legislative sentiment, but the bill’s language indicates a policy goal of limiting large-scale residential expansion on sensitive coastal islands.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be the restriction on private property development and the use of a historical square-footage cap, which could be viewed by landowners, builders, and development interests as a significant constraint on economic use of coastal property. Supporters would likely argue that the bill protects fragile island environments and historic character, while opponents may argue that it is overly rigid, potentially unfair to property owners, and difficult to apply because it relies on the largest structure existing on a specific date in 1995. No committee transcript is available to identify specific speakers or positions.