Agenda - Council Work Session - 10/29/2013

Home

accident on our mower. (That's if we're still allowed to mow our grass, if, we can keep it.) We should be able to trim them on our own as we have over the years. We don't need a tree specialist or a government agent to make that determination. Seriously, who is going to foot that bill, guess who? We also are users of the river and when branches on trees are allowed to be fully overgrown we cannot enjoy the view either. Speaking of enjoying the view. Who discerns what is visually intrusive? The person going by in a canoe? Should peoples[`] homes, garages, vehicles be screened from view? How again does that improve our environment? People live in houses everywhere, we all know that and do we really have to keep them out of view so as not to offend "the user"? [Doesn't] he or she live in a house too? Is there a conforming material for that? Will there be tax credits for those people who cannot afford to comply, will others be penalized on their real estate taxes? Personally, a concrete or asphalt parking lot full of vehicles is intrusive to look at from the water, but that is exempt. I think it contributes to run off but I am no expert on that. Doesn't run off have an ecological impact? So public exempt properties don't have to be aesthetic or environmentally safe? Only privately held properties? Restoration of vegetation to a natural state is a great idea. In a perfect world. But we also would like to enjoy parts of our acreage that we pay those exorbitant real estate taxes for. The person using the river is not the only user here. Let's not forget that. There are many properties where lawns meet the river. Ours is not one of those. I think that educating the homeowner and encouraging incorporation of some natural vegetation is acceptable. Forcing people to do these things does not bring about a good outcome. I also don't believe the original intention of this plan is to return to the way it used to be years ago. We are also concerned that someday when we sell our home there will be something nonconforming given all of the rules. A nonconforming property creates an exception in the title policy. The mortgage company will not underwrite a loan for the buyer. What protection or guarantees do we have for availability of mortgages for MRCCA nonconforming properties? Will the Commissioner create a rule for that? There are many other issues that impact homeowners (i.e. set backs, heights, zones) and their rights to enjoy their properties that don't personally affect our property as far as we can tell. However, the rules should be more inclusive to allow enjoyment of this resource by all with more reasonable standards supported by proven ecologically beneficial results. The money generated by the Omnibus Legacy Bill provided to the DNR might be better spent improving the quality of this body of water rather than its aesthetics. Zebra mussels have now found their way to our area and other species continue to threaten Minnesota lakes and rivers but the DNR recently rejected the idea of using legacy fund dollars for prevention. We have all contributed sales tax money towards that since 2008, but we don't know best how it should be spent. Really? Thank you for your consideration of our input. I hope that a mutually beneficial plan incorporating fewer updated standards and less land controls can be created. Comment 4: Hi Tim, My Wife and I have been property owners on the Mississippi River since 1987. We support the protection for all to enjoy this valuable resource, but we find many of these new rules that would impact property owners to have no environmental value. Our property has both natural vegetation, and an area we have landscaped to enhance the property. People floating by in canoe's etc. always comment how nice our DRAFT Statement of Policy — Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (10/29/13)