The criteria to evaluate wetland use permit applications to permit a use listed in § 152.035 are as follows:
(A) A permit for an activity listed in § 152.035 shall not be approved unless the township finds that issuance of the permit would be in the public interest, would be otherwise lawful in all respects, and is necessary to allow reasonable use of the property.
(B) In determining whether an activity is in the public interest, the benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the activity shall be balanced against the reasonably foreseeable detriments of the activity. The decision shall reflect the national, state, and local concern for the protection of natural resources from pollution, impairment, and destruction, giving consideration to the following:
(1) The relative extent of public and private need for the proposed activity.
(2) The availability of feasible and prudent alternative locations and methods to accomplish the expected benefits from the activity.
(3) The extent and permanence of beneficial or detrimental effects that the proposed activity may have on the public and private uses for which the area is suited, giving consideration to the benefits the wetland provides.
(4) The probable impact of the proposal in relation to the cumulative effect created by other existing and anticipated activities in the watershed.
(5) The probable impact on recognized historic, cultural, scenic, wildlife, ecological, or recreational values, and on public health or safety.
(6) The size and quality of the wetland being considered and the amount and quality of the wetland remaining in the general area.
(7) Economic value, both public and private, of the proposed activity.
(8) Findings of necessity for the proposed activity by other local, county, or state agencies.
(9) Proximity to any waterway.
(10) Extent to which upland soil erosion adjacent to the protected wetland is controlled.
(C) In considering a permit application, the township shall give serious consideration to the findings of necessity for the proposed activity which have been made by state agencies.
(D) A wetland use permit shall not be issued unless it is shown that an unacceptable disruption will not result to the aquatic resources, giving consideration to the above criteria. A permit shall not be issued unless the applicant also demonstrates that:
(1) The proposed activity is primarily dependent upon being located in the wetland.
(2) A proposed mitigation plan will replace the lost or eliminated resource value of the wetlands.
(3) A feasible and prudent alternative does not exist.
(E) If it is otherwise a feasible and prudent alternative, an area not presently owned by the applicant that could reasonably be obtained, utilized, expanded, or managed in order to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed activity may be considered.
(F) An alternative that entails higher costs, as described in R 281.922a(11) of the Michigan Administrative Code, is not feasible and prudent if those higher costs are unreasonable. In determining whether such costs are unreasonable, the department shall consider both of the following:
(1) The relation of the increased cost to the overall scope and cost of the project.
(2) Whether the projected cost is substantially greater than the costs normally associated with the particular type of project.
(G) Failure to submit a complete application is sufficient reason for denial of a wetland use permit.
(Ord. passed 3-5-2002; Ord., § 4.5, passed 9-7-2010)