Laserfiche WebLink
<br />3 <br /> <br />Opposition to Proposed Setback: <br /> <br />A DNR hydrologist recently suggested that there should be a full and maximum 200 ft. <br />setback to a interested buyer. <br /> <br />The hydrologist also questioned if Lot 15 was buildable on the basis oflot size (i.e. less <br />than 2.5 acres). <br /> <br />Finally, the hydrologist noted "little hope" that a variance would be approved presumably <br />by the DNR Commissioner. <br /> <br />Applicant Response <br />Re: DNR Opposition: <br /> <br />The above statements were made by a single DNR staff member, and were made without <br />being reviewed by any legal counsel ofDNR, and also he made no inspection ofthe property, <br />nor did he have any knowledge of the property's history. <br /> <br />The Applicant's note that the City of Ramsey is equally empowered to decide upon land <br />use within its boundaries. <br /> <br />When and were empowered, the Department of Natural Resources takes a pro natural <br />environment position. By doing so, the DNR automatically becomes oppositional to varying <br />degrees of all land use. <br /> <br />They hydrologist statement's are therefore somewhat understandable, but also not <br />acceptable because: <br /> <br />1. Property rights are negated. <br /> <br />2. The statements ignores prior variance's (i.e. legal precedents). <br /> <br />3. The statements presumes to speak for both the City of Ramsey and the <br />Commissioner of Natural Resources. <br /> <br />4. The statements cite DNR self-drafted and self serving State Rules and local <br />ordinances that were imposed on the City of Ramsey for the purpose of <br />establishing eligibility for state and federal funding and compliance. <br /> <br />The applicants request that this variance application be decided by the City of Ramsey <br />without consideration as to prejudicial statements of the DNR hydrologist. <br /> <br />17 <br />