Laserfiche WebLink
6.03: Public Hearing: Consider Request for Variance to Deviate from Wetland Setback <br />Requirement on Three Lots in Williams Woods (Project No. 20-138); Case of <br />Landform and Bill Boyum <br />Public Hearing <br />Chairperson Bauer called the public hearing to order at 8:01 p.m. <br />PrPePntntinn <br />City Planner Anderson presented the staff report stating that staff recommends approval of the <br />requested variance. He noted that the EPB also reviewed this case earlier this week and <br />recommended approval as well. <br />Chairperson Bauer asked the location of the 40-acre parcel in relation to the development. <br />City Planner Anderson identified the 40-acre parcel that is subject to the handout. <br />Commissioner Anderson stated that he would assume that the culverts would be concrete. He <br />asked if this has been reviewed by the fire department and whether the heavy equipment had <br />concerns with their equipment. <br />City Planner Anderson confirmed that public safety reviewed the request and did not have any <br />concerns. <br />Commissioner VanScoy asked if there would be alternatives to the variance. <br />City Planner Anderson replied that lot three would not have an alternative. He noted that on lot <br />four he would also argue that there is no alternative once the front yard and wetland setbacks are <br />applied. He stated that for lot five, there may be a potential alternative, but staff has found that <br />when there is limited buildable area surrounding a home there are other issues that arise related to <br />fill in the wetland or other issues of encroachment. <br />Commissioner VanScoy asked what would happen if the setback were required, noting that the <br />developer would have to use fill and then would have to mitigate for that fill. He noted that may <br />not be considered reasonable but asked if that could be considered an alternative. <br />City Planner Anderson replied that the applicant provided details within their narrative. He noted <br />that the applicant could add fill to create that setback under the de minimis exemption, but staff <br />and the applicant agree that adding fill would be contradictory to the spirit of the Wetland <br />Conservation Act. <br />Commissioner Anderson confirmed that he would not prefer that alternative but wanted to clarify <br />the alternatives available. He agreed that this method would be preferable to adding additional fill <br />in order to meet the setback. <br />Planning Commission/ July 22, 2021 <br />Page 9 of 22 <br />