Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2017

Home

Additional consequences of not adopting the proposed rule are: • the DNR may need to assess the current oversight and/or enforcement of MRCCA plans and ordinances adopted under Executive Order 79-19, and take action to compel compliance with the MRCCA program; • the application of outdated and ambiguous development standards in the MRCCA; • the application of inconsistent local ordinances across communities in the MRCCA; • inflexible and outdated districts in the MRCCA that do not reflect changing land uses; • reduced water quality protection from nonpoint sources in the MRCCA; • weakened protection of shorelines and bluffs; • lack of open space protection during the subdivision process; • uncertainty for businesses, developers, and stakeholders of rule standards; and • an uneven playing field for regulators and regulated parties. 7. An assessment of any differences between the proposed rule and existing federal regulations and a specific analysis of the need for and reasonableness of each difference. The proposed rules do not conflict with federal regulations. Other regulations that apply within the MRCCA that are subject to federal standards, such as floodplain regulations, would not be affected by the proposed rules. The proposed rules do not regulate facilities or properties owned or managed by the federal government. 8. An assessment of the cumulative effect of the rule with other state regulations related to the specific purpose of the rule. A "cumulative effect" assessment requires the assessment of the incremental impact of the proposed rule in conjunction with other rules, regardless of the state or federal agency that adopted the other rules. Minn. R. 14.131. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant rules adopted over a period of time. Generally, the proposed rules refer to, rather than add to, other federal and state regulations (i.e. feedlots, stormwater, etc.) to minimize conflict and cumulative effects. In the event that there is a conflict, the proposed rules clarify that the more restrictive regulation applies. The sole exception is the state's shoreland management rules. The MRCCA rules will overlap with the state shoreland management rules set forth in Minn. R. Ch. 6120, which are implemented by communities through local shoreland management ordinances. The boundary of the shoreland district in the shoreland rules is 300 feet from the ordinary high water level of rivers or the outer extent of any existing floodplain, whichever is greater. Minn. R. 6120.2500, subp. 15 (2015). The boundary of the MRCCA varies throughout the corridor but is almost always greater than the shoreland district established in the shoreland rules. On land covered by both the MRCCA and shoreland districts, both sets of standards will apply, with the more restrictive standards taking precedence. For example, in some instances the proposed MRCCA rules have more restrictive standards for structure and bluff setbacks, subdivisions, vegetation removal, and land alteration than the shoreland management program. Thus in the MRCCA these standards would take precedence over 16