Minutes from 1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

LRRWMO Meeting Minutes November 16, 1995 Page 4 of the education process. He also suggested this information be advertised in the member cities newsletters and cable television. Lobermeier agreed to prepaze a news release for review at the December 21, 1995, meeting. Weaver questioned whether the public hearing process should be followed or if it would be more desirable to BWSR to have an advisory committee. Lobermeier suggested the LRRWMO first announce the process through a news release and afford the opportunity for public review of the Plan at the Ibraries. Depending on what the response is, an open meeting could be scheduled at which time the Plan could be presented. Lobermeier recommended a citizen committee not be formed unless there is so much public interest that the LRRWMO feels it warranted. Schultz indicated support for holding a public hearing. Lobermeier clarified he is suggesting an open house type of meeting where no formal action would be considered but rather a giving of information and answering of questions. He explained this will satisfy the education goal. Weaver noted the LRRWMO deals with elements that have significance and there is a need to notify and educate the public about this process. He indicated support for providing copies at Anoka County libraries and scheduling a public hearing with residents where the consultant can present the Plan. Lobermeier suggested the press release be reviewed in December with publication in January and the public hearing scheduled for February. Weaver asked if the cost for work is part of the cost included in the Plan preparation. Lobermeier indicated it is. Consensus reached. The LRRWMO then reviewed information provided by Lobermeier on mapping, a flow chart of the current permitting process, LGU responsibilities, permit application process, development checklist, application, sequencing and wetland replacement forms. He noted if this type of information is included in the Plan, anyone can access the information and understand what is necessary. Lobermeier asked how far he should pursue a legal description of the LRRWMO boundaries. Ferguson suggested he contact and request a legal description from the Coon Creek Watershed to see how it compares. Consensus reached. The next items reviewed included a brochure on guidance of the WCA, informational flyer, information on projects that impact wetlands, and wetland delineation requirements and procedures. Lobermeier explained that to assure consistency, this information could be included as an appendix or added to the Plan itself.