Minutes from 1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

LRRWMO Meeting Minutes January 15, 1992 Page 5 Jankowski stated this plan is not in conflict with the LRRWMO Water Management Plan. Schrantz stated this board should look at it in accordance with our plan. However, the LRRWMO plan was in place before wetland legislation; but this plan was also prior to the wetland regulation policy. Schrantz went on to state legislation says certain things are exempt from the wetland regulation policy; and this application was in before the end of the year and should, therefore, be exempt. He felt this project should have to meet the regula- tions that existed in December 1991. This project will also obtain a LRRWMO permit. Schultz argued the problem with the philosophy of a given preliminary plat being exempt from current regulations is this board does not review preliminary plans; therefore, we can not comment on them. Jankowski felt the developers should be told when they submit their preliminary plans that they must be in conformance with LRRWMO guidelines. Considerable discussion ensued between Schultz and Jankowski, with Schultz arguing that a preliminary plat, even if submit- ted prior to the institution of specific legislation, is still preliminary and is, therefore, subject to change. Jankowski stated developers spend a lot of money putting a preliminary plat together, having it approved, and then prepares to proceed with the project. He queried how he can be required to implement regulations established after his plan was initiated. Schultz responded that is the risk a developer takes. A preliminary plan does not get a LRRWMO review. Jankowski stated the whole issue is whether we can make things retroactive. He did not feel we could. Erickson agreed more so with Schultz's position, specifically with regard to discussion relative to a hypothetical phased project. Both he and Schultz disagreed with Jankowski, stating a developer should not be allowed to submit a prelim- inary plan for a phased project and continue, over an extended period of time, to operate under the original regulations. Schultz argued he did not think the date of the submission of a preliminary plat should exempt a development from existing regulations at the time of review. Schrantz added it was his opinion that as along as a pre- liminary plat is active, the developer should be able to go along with the original plat. Motion was made by Jankowski to APPROVE DNR PERMIT #92 -6100, CONTINGENT ON IT RECEIVING DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMITS.