Laserfiche WebLink
claimant, the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment - backed <br />expectations and the character of the government regulations. <br />Chairperson Nixt explained that if the character of the government regulation was only <br />applicable to one or two landowners it would be more likely deemed unconstitutional, if it is <br />applicable to all similarly situated landowners, as this ordinance seems to be, the burden is much <br />higher for a landowner to show that the character of the government regulation constitutes a <br />taking <br />Robert Sibilski, 7240 166 Avenue NW. Mr. Sibilski, in r <br />clarified where his comments in his letter to the e <br />as fact regarding the unconstitutionality of the o <br />in that this should have been looked at throug <br />community not at a public hearing. The City h <br />works. The ordinance gives the developer an oppo <br />looks at this as a way to protect our natural resource <br />opportunity to see if this ordinance works once deve <br />Sarah Strommen, 14546 Krypton St NW. <br />This ordinance goes back to 2000 -2001 <br />development was developed. Ther <br />Environmental Policy Board. The task <br />on to the wetland buffer ordinance. <br />committed to studying the issue __ -care <br />vetted to that extent. They b <br />District, and the Builders Ass <br />urg, 6356 Ri <br />cal data to the <br />ance of wetlands. <br />Ms. Strommen continued <br />has not had <br />wetland <br />John. <br />John <br />stated e <br />Federal Gove <br />ordinance supers <br />Dmmission Brauer's letter <br />arding the Mayor's stating <br />Commissioner Brauer <br />b • and ? , • within the <br />ordinance <br />a citizen he <br />give this an <br />pportu <br />ply for a v <br />d like to see t <br />ack to our city. <br />en presen e rigin of the ordinance. <br />a citizen iative when The Ponds <br />established, which now is the <br />rvation ordinance and moved <br />has not seen a group more <br />ng and has not seen an ordinance <br />sum the DNR, Anoka Conservation <br />nance didn't happen over night and unfortunately the city <br />'t works. She stated there is an economic benefit to <br />e value that wetlands have. <br />:rive. As ember of the Environment Policy Board, he brings <br />. Freeburg gave examples of newspaper articles that showed <br />fix: copies of the articles if anyone is interested in reading them. <br />e NW. Mr. Engstrom is not in favor of the ordinance. He <br />atural buffer, trees, cattails, brush, open water. He stated the <br />mandate buffers if it was necessary. Mr. Engstrom stated that this <br />and federal ordinances. <br />Discussion ensued as to ays the ordinance would affect development of properties. <br />Mr. Engstrom reiterated that wetlands have their natural buffer. <br />Planning Commission/April 2, 2009 <br />Page 6 of 13 <br />—217— <br />