Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2017

Home

4. A description of any alternative methods for achieving the purpose of the proposed rule that were seriously considered by the agency and the reasons why they were rejected in favor of the proposed rule. The 2008 DNR report to the Legislature identified several non-rulemaking approaches to accomplish the preservation and protection goals for the MRCCA set forth by the Legislature in Minn. Stat. § 116G.15. Those approaches included: • moving MRCCA administration to other DNR programs/units or to other state or local agencies; • enhancing the existing program structure and authorities; • modifying the current program or process; • increasing oversight of local decisions; • educating local governments about the importance of protecting properties within the M RCCA; • providing financial incentives to encourage adoption of land use practices to protect critical areas within the MRCCA; • acquiring easements and property of particularly critical natural, aesthetic, cultural, historic or other resources within the MRCCA; and/or • providing voluntary standards for local governments to adopt. The 2009 and 2013 Minnesota Legislatures determined that these mechanisms would not adequately protect the state's broad interests across the MRCCA and determined that the best and most equitable mechanism to protect the MRCCA was through a uniform rule applied across the MRCCA. The Legislatures, therefore, directed the DNR to develop rules establishing new districts within the MRCCA, standards and guidelines for development within each district, and rules for administration of the MRCCA program. Minn. Stat. § 116G.15, subds. 2-4 (2015). 5. The probable costs of complying with the proposed rule, including the portion of the total costs that will be borne by identifiable categories of affected parties, such as separate classes of governmental units, businesses, or individuals. The DNR has conducted an analysis to assess the potential cost of complying with the proposed rules. Local governmental units and other agencies already expend resources to comply with the requirements of Executive Order 79-19, therefore, it is anticipated that these governmental units will only incur modest changes in the direct or indirect costs of complying with the proposed rule. Changes that may require additional effort on the part of these governmental units include: • new permit requirements proposed for management of vegetation and land alteration/ stormwater in specified areas, ADA-compliant facilities, aggregate mining and extraction, and wireless communication facilities; • notification of the National Park Service and adjoining local governments of certain discretionary actions, such as variances and conditional uses; and • likely updates to local government MRCCA plans and ordinances as a result of district and standard changes. However, DNR intends to assist local governments by developing model 13