Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Councilmember Dehen stated that the one thing that may warrant discussion is why this exceeds <br />DNR regulations. He stated that he is not against being proactive, but it does exceed DNR <br />requirements and State requirements. He stated that he thinks it warrants discussion on why the <br />City wants to exceed those regulations. He stated that the City is telling people what you can <br />and cannot do on their land. He stated that you are even putting monuments on people's land. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich stated that the City cannot necessarily go onto people's land to put up a <br />monument, but he has done no research on that question specifically. <br /> <br />Councilmember Wise stated asked what brought on the additional buffering standards. <br /> <br />Environmental Coordinator Anderson stated that in the late 1990's or early in the 2000's, there <br />was a development known as The Ponds and there was widespread destruction of trees and <br />impact to the wetland areas as part of that project. He stated that at that time, the City had no <br />tools to address tree preservation or wetland protection. He noted that the Environmental <br />Protection Task Force was created to take a look at those issues, which was eventually deemed to <br />be the Environmental Protection Board (EPB). <br /> <br />Councilmember Look asked if the Wetland Conservation Act requires a wetland buffer. <br /> <br />Environmental 'Coordinator Anderson stated that it does not require a buffer. <br /> <br />Mayor Ramsey stated that he isn't necessarily opposed to having some kind of wetland <br />buffering, but he feels it is being done incorrectly and he sees it as taking of property. He stated <br />that he feels a public hearing should be held to have discussion on this issue. He stated that he <br />holds Town Hall meetings on the third Thursday of each month and encouraged the public to <br />come and talk about this issue. <br /> <br />Councilmember Jeffrey recommended this be sent to the EPB for review and ask for case law <br />before a public hearing is held for a possible repeal. <br /> <br />Environmental Coordinator Anderson stated that the EPB meets next Monday and that isn't <br />much time to research case law. He noted that their next meeting is after the April 2, 2009 <br />Council meeting. <br /> <br />Mayor Ramsey stated that he personally doesn't care about case law. <br /> <br />Councilmember E1vig stated that this was a challenging case and there was a lot of work put into <br />this. He stated that what he thinks was put forward is that it follows with what a lot of what the <br />Council has been talking about to toughen up ordinances and relax them when it is appropriate. <br />He stated that he thinks this is what they were trying to do with this ordinance. He stated that he <br />didn't really think anybody wanted to take people's land. He stated that he supports <br />Councilmember Jeffrey's suggestion and if it is felt to be unconstitutional then there should be <br />case law gathered. He stated that he would support holding a public hearing on this issue <br /> <br />City Council / February 24, 2009 <br />Page 10 of 19 <br />