Introduced
by
To revise the requirement in the state wetlands law that a landowner must show his or her intended use of the property to be “in the public interest” based on “the relative extent of the public and private need for the proposed” use. Under the bill, the owner’s assertion of the private need would be presumed to be valid in showing this. Also, place conditions on the requirement that regulators consider “the availability of feasible and prudent alternative locations and methods.” Regulators would have to consider whether an alternative location they propose is on the same parcel, and if not whether it is already owned by the person. Also, whether the owner's proposed use and an existing developed use would be mutually beneficial. In other words, regulators would essentially have to look at the proposed use from the point of view of the property owner.
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, Great Lakes, Land Use, and Environment
Referred to the Committee on Commerce
