Minutes from 1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

LRRWMO Meeting Minutes June 15, 1995 Page 3 Haas explained that at the time the Cease and Desist Order was issued, the Permanent Rules were in affect which required 2/1 replacement. He further explained that this would not have become a problem if Fries had completed the driveway work before the Interim Rules started. Jankowski asked if all the dirt moving took place at one time. Fries stated it took place over a period of time. He added that he closed on this property on November 27, 1991 and started work within several weeks of that date. Haas advised it is the determination of Tony Brough, Anoka County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), that 2/1 mitigation is required. Weaver asserted that if the work began under the Interim Rules, then the Permanent Rules (2/i mitigation) should not apply. Haas stated he asked Brough about this issue and Brough said the Permanent Rules apply because at the time the Cease and Desist Order was issued, the Permanent Rules were effective. Fries explained he did the work himself so he has no documentation to prove the timeline of when work started but he does have a grading permit from the City of Andover dated January 15, 1992. At that time, Andover stopped work on the project and told him he needed a permit from them. Fries stated he had permits from the Corp of Engineers and Anoka County, and did not know a City permit was also required. Fries reiterated he received the Corp permit before any mitigation was required and now the Permanent Rules require a 2/1 replacement mitigation. Fries stated he is able to provide a ratio of 1.45/1 for mitigation and asked if the LRRWMO would accept this ratio as a compromise since no mitigation was required when he obtained the permit. Jankowski indicated a willingness to consider a 1.45/1 ratio since mitigation was required after the permit work started. In response to Ferguson, Fries explained the driveway work was completed in the Fall of 1993, before the Cease and Desist Order was issued in May of 1994 for filling in another area (not the driveway work). Haas reviewed the permit file and explained the sequence of events. The Corp of Engineer's permit was issued for a shared driveway access (location #1); however, the driveway access was constructed in another location (location #2) which was not permitted by any organization. Also, the City has another drawing showing the driveway in a third location. Haas explained the Corp does allow relocation of up to one-half an acre so they are not concerned about location #2 where the driveway access was constructed. The position of the SWCD is that the driveway should have been constructed in location #1. Fries explained that 20 yeazs ago dirt was dumped in location #1 and it was assumed it could be used as an access, but it contained a lot of peat which would have to be excavated