Minutes - Planning Commission - 04/02/2009

Home

Commissioner Hunt stated that most of what is being said tonight is the importance of wetlands. There is no question about that. In repealing this ordinance it wouldn't be touching the wetland at all, it would be taking away the buffer. He stated he is not sure where he would stand on the thought of it being a taking of land. An aggressive tree ordinance is in place. It is not right to say that this ordinance doesn't get challenged very often; maybe it doesn't get challenged very often because it is not economically feasible to challenge it. He would like to stay with the Ramsey3 type process rather than here at a public hearing making .a decision for a Council recommendation. Jim Overtoom, 16660 Jaspar Street NW. Mr. Overtoom stated ordinances are in place to protect the health and welfare of the residents of the city, not the developers. This ordinance is in place to protect the health and welfare of the city by protecting the ground water, the edges of the wetland, open spaces to some extent, without causing a great deal of damage to all of the residents ofthe city, yet protecting the rights of everyone in the city. Mr. Overtoom stated he is in favor of the ordinance. He stated the ordinance is no different than the setbacks that he lives with on his property. Chairperson Nixt left the meeting at 8:39 p.m. Chairperson Next returned to the meeting at 8:42 p.m. Jamie Schurbori, Anoka County Conservation District. He spoke on what he sees as a successful ordinance. He stated that for an ordinance to be considered a regulatory taking, it would have to take all or substantially all the value or use of the property. He continued talking about the important aspects of an ordinance and stated that the City's ordinance does include those aspects. The ordinance is also consistent with the Wetland Conservation Act. He stated that it is true all property owners have rights; however, they have duties as well. One of those duties is to manage their property in a way that is not harmful to public health and environment. He spoke on the science aspect of the ordinance. He stated the ordinance scientific aspects are good and consistent with other cities. Mr. Schurbon gave opportunities of compromise in the ordinance rather than just throwing out the ordinance. Commissioner Van Scoy thanked Mr. Schurbon for attending the meeting and giting of his expertise. He asked what types of buffers are allowed or recommended. I Mr. Schurbon stated that typically there are two types of buffers, one without nOfious weed present that can be your buffer, with some management like mowing, second if you have noxious weeds then do a replanting. He stated what is in our ordinance supports either version I Planning Commission/April 2, 2009 Page 7 of 13