13:9B-10. Rebuttable presumption
a. It shall be a rebuttable presumption that there is a practicable alternative to any nonwater-dependent regulated activity that does not involve a freshwater wetland, and that such an alternative to any regulated activity would have less of an impact on the aquatic ecosystem. An alternative shall be practicable if it is available and capable of being carried out after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes, and may include an area not owned by the applicant which could reasonably have been or be obtained, utilized, expanded, or managed in order to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed activity.
b. In order to rebut the presumption established in subsection a. of this section an applicant for a freshwater wetlands permit must demonstrate the following
(1) That the basic project purpose cannot reasonably be accomplished utilizing one or more other sites in the general region that would avoid, or result in less, adverse impact on an aquatic ecosystem; and
(2) That a reduction in the size, scope, configuration, or density of the project as proposed and all alternative designs to that of the project as proposed that would avoid, or result in less, adverse impact on an aquatic ecosystem will not accomplish the basic purpose of the project; and
(3) That in cases where the applicant has rejected alternatives to the project as proposed due to constraints such as inadequate zoning, infrastructure, or parcel size, the applicant has made reasonable attempts to remove or accommodate such constraints.
c. In order to rebut the presumption established in subsection a. of this section with respect to wetlands of exceptional resource value, an applicant, in addition to complying with the provisions of subsection b. of this section, must also demonstrate that there is a compelling public need for the proposed activity greater than the need to protect the freshwater wetland that cannot be met by essentially similar projects in the region which are under construction or expansion, or have received the necessary governmental permits and approvals; or that denial of the permit would impose an extraordinary hardship on the part of the applicant brought about by circumstances peculiar to the subject property.
L. 1987, c. 156, s. 10.
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.