13:9B-10. Rebuttable presumption

372 words·~2 min read·/nj/title-13/chapter-9b/13-9b-10

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

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.