Opinion ID: 2010717
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Performance of the Practicable Alternatives Analysis

Text: [¶ 39] The Ulianos contend that the Board erred by performing the practicable alternatives analysis required by section 5(A) of the Wetland Protection Rules before determining the degree of interference with existing uses pursuant to section 480-D(1). Section 5(A) of the Wetland Protection Rules provides that [n]o activity shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the project that would be less damaging to the environment. 2 C.M.R. 06 096 310-3 § 5(A) (2007). [¶ 40] In our previous decision in this case, we stated that the Board's consideration of practicable alternatives to a proposed project is a factor that should be balanced in its section 480-D(1) analysis. Uliano I, 2005 ME 88, ¶ 13, 876 A.2d at 19-20. This statement addressed the Board's error of failing to relate its finding that a practicable alternative exists to its overall determination of whether the relevant section 480-D criteria were satisfied. Id. ¶ 11, 876 A.2d at 19. It did not simultaneously announce a specific methodology by which the Board must perform the balancing analysis. Therefore, the Board did not err by addressing the existence of practicable alternatives in its order before discussing the degree of impact on existing uses. [¶ 41] Furthermore, contrary to the Ulianos' assertion, the Board did determine the degree of impact on existing uses. In its section 480-D(1) analysis, the Board specifically found that the Ulianos' proposed pier would be a significant visual intrusion for persons walking the intertidal area, and that the pier would have a significant adverse scenic and aesthetic impact on the uses of the area by boaters. Having found that the degree of impact on those existing scenic and aesthetic uses would be significant, the Board then found that the degree of impact would be unreasonable because, among other reasons, the applicants do have at least one practicable alternative that would be less damaging to the environment. The Board's analysis therefore properly determined the degree of impact on existing uses, and further related its finding that a practicable alternative exists to its determination of whether the section 480-D(1) criteria were satisfied.