New Jersey Statutes

N.J. Stat. § 12:5-3 (2026)

Department approval required for waterfront development; exemptions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaN.J. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

12:5-3. a. All plans for the development of any waterfront upon any navigable water or stream of this State or bounding thereon, which is contemplated by any person or municipality, in the nature of individual improvement or development or as a part of a general plan which involves the construction or alteration of a dock, wharf, pier, bulkhead, bridge, pipeline, cable, or any other similar or dissimilar waterfront development shall be first submitted to the Department of Environmental Protection. No such development or improvement shall be commenced or executed without the approval of the Department of Environmental Protection first had and received, or as hereinafter in this chapter provided.

b. The following are exempt from the provisions of subsection a. of this section:

(1) The repair, replacement or renovation of a permanent dock, wharf, pier, bulkhead or building existing prior to January 1, 1981, provided the repair, replacement or renovation does not increase the size of the structure and the structure is used solely for residential purposes or the docking or servicing of pleasure vessels;

(2) The repair, replacement or renovation of a floating dock, mooring raft or similar temporary or seasonal improvement or structure, provided the improvement or structure does not exceed in length the waterfront frontage of the parcel of real property to which it is attached and is used solely for the docking or servicing of pleasure vessels; and

(3) Development in the coastal area, as defined in section 4 of P.L.1973, c.185 (C.13:19-4), landward of the mean high water line of any tidal waters.

c. Notwithstanding the provisions of any law, rule, or regulation to the contrary, the Department of Environmental Protection shall not, as a condition of approval required pursuant to subsection a. of this section, include solar panels in any calculation of impervious surface or impervious cover.

As used in this subsection, "solar panel" means an elevated panel or plate, or a canopy or array thereof, that captures and converts solar radiation to produce power, and includes flat plate, focusing solar collectors, or photovoltaic solar cells and excludes the base or foundation of the panel, plate, canopy, or array.

d. The Department of Environmental Protection may, as a condition of an approval required pursuant to subsection a. of this section, and pursuant to standards established by rule or regulation adopted pursuant to the "Administrative Procedure Act," P.L.1968, c.410 (C.52:14B-1 et seq.), require a person or municipality to provide on-site public access to the waterfront and adjacent shoreline, or off-site public access to the waterfront and adjacent shoreline if on-site public access is not feasible as determined by the department. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to abrogate or otherwise affect any public access obligations or requirements of any approval, administrative order, consent decree, or court order in effect prior to the effective date of P.L.2015, c.260.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: State v. Malibu Beach, Inc., 507 A.2d 316 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1986).
State v. Malibu Beach, Inc., 507 A.2d 316 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1986). · cites it 2× “Failure to comply with the above Conditions, including the stated deadline, would be considered a violation of N.J.S.A. 12:5-3 and/or N.J.S.A. 13:9A-1. Should noncompliance with any Condition occur, the permittee will be issued a stop work order with possible suspension and…”
Susko v. Borough of Belmar, 206 A.3d 979 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019). “The Legislature recently reaffirmed the broad authority of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to protect the public's right of access to tidally flowed waters and their adjacent shorelines under the public trust doctrine, through the agency's permitting authority…”
Anfuso v. Seeley, 579 A.2d 817 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1990). “This license is made subject to the limitation that the licensee herein shall not improve or develop the above described lands flowed by tide nor appropriate said lands to their own exclusive use unless and until a permit, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 12:5-3, is obtained for that…”
Michael Dunn v. New Jersey Dep't of Env't Prot., Etc. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2024). · cites it 6× “In addition, the DEP's rejection of his post-construction request for a permit modification was reasonable, given that the WDL specifies that the construction of piers and similar structures requires pre-construction approval from the DEP. In particular, N.”
Lincoln Harbor Enter., LLC v. Hartz Mountain Indus., Inc. (D.N.J. 2020). · cites it 2× “However, in their briefing, they draw attention to N.J. Stat. Ann. § 12:5-3 (a), which requires that plans for waterfront development be approved by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”).”
John E. Susko Vs. Borough of Belmar (l-1427-15, Monmouth Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019). “(continued) tidally flowed waters and their adjacent shorelines under the public trust doctrine, through the agency's permitting authority in N.J.S.A. 12:5-3(d) (regulating waterfront development) and N.”
In the Matter of Ricardo Mora & Kelli Kenny, Waterfront Dev. Permit No. 1xxx-xx-0005.1 Wfd 160001, Challenged by James Bodenheimer (Dep't of Env't Prot.) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019). “PER CURIAM James Bodenheimer appeals from the January 10, 2018 final agency decision of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), denying his December 1, 2016 request for an adjudicatory hearing to challenge a permit issued to his neighbors, Ricardo Mora and Kelli Kenny…”
In the Matter of P.T. Jibsail Fam. Ltd. P'ship, Etc. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2024). “A-0699-22 16 [N.J.S.A. 12:5-3(a).] No statute mandates NJDEP approve each and every permit application.”
In the Matter of Denial of Third Party Hearing Request of P.T. Jibsail, Etc. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2025). “Under N.J.S.A. 12:5-3(a), A-2570-22 3 any "construction or alteration of a dock" requires a DEP permit, unless one of the enumerated exemptions applies.”
In the Matter of P.T. Jibsail Fam. Ltd. P'ship Tidelands License No. 1515-06-0012.1 TDI 190001 (N.J. 2026). “See N.J.S.A. 12:5-3(a); Peter J. Gannon, Riparian Rights 9 (1955); In re Tideland’s License 96-0114-T, 326 N.”
— N.J. Stat. § 12:5-3(a) — 4 cases
Michael Dunn v. New Jersey Dep't of Env't Prot., Etc. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2024). “In addition, the DEP's rejection of his post-construction request for a permit modification was reasonable, given that the WDL specifies that the construction of piers and similar structures requires pre-construction approval from the DEP. In particular, N.”
In the Matter of P.T. Jibsail Fam. Ltd. P'ship, Etc. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2024). “A-0699-22 16 [N.J.S.A. 12:5-3(a).] No statute mandates NJDEP approve each and every permit application.”
In the Matter of Denial of Third Party Hearing Request of P.T. Jibsail, Etc. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2025). “Under N.J.S.A. 12:5-3(a), A-2570-22 3 any "construction or alteration of a dock" requires a DEP permit, unless one of the enumerated exemptions applies.”
In the Matter of P.T. Jibsail Fam. Ltd. P'ship Tidelands License No. 1515-06-0012.1 TDI 190001 (N.J. 2026). “See N.J.S.A. 12:5-3(a); Peter J. Gannon, Riparian Rights 9 (1955); In re Tideland’s License 96-0114-T, 326 N.”
— N.J. Stat. § 12:5-3(b)(1) — 1 case
Michael Dunn v. New Jersey Dep't of Env't Prot., Etc. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2024). “In addition, the DEP's rejection of his post-construction request for a permit modification was reasonable, given that the WDL specifies that the construction of piers and similar structures requires pre-construction approval from the DEP. In particular, N.”
— N.J. Stat. § 12:5-3(d) — 2 cases
Susko v. Borough of Belmar, 206 A.3d 979 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019). “The Legislature recently reaffirmed the broad authority of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to protect the public's right of access to tidally flowed waters and their adjacent shorelines under the public trust doctrine, through the agency's permitting authority…”
John E. Susko Vs. Borough of Belmar (l-1427-15, Monmouth Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019). “(continued) tidally flowed waters and their adjacent shorelines under the public trust doctrine, through the agency's permitting authority in N.J.S.A. 12:5-3(d) (regulating waterfront development) and N.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.