Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Peterson replied he is not aware that WPS has ever done an analysis like this where all of the <br />wetlands were not studied. They conducted studies for Plymouth and Eden Prairie and looked at <br />100% ofthe wetlands. <br /> <br />Ms. Kampbell explained with a lot of the larger wetlands they could not access every part of the <br />wetland. They tried to take representative sample points along these larger wetlands, especially <br />with wetlands that might have a wooded swamp and a cattail marsh. Most of the wetlands were <br />accessed through public access. <br /> <br />Citizen Input <br /> <br />Mr. John Enstrom, 8702 181 st Avenue NW, stated he is very concel11ed over this as a citizen and <br />a resident. He probably has more wetland buffers on his property than anyone in the City of <br />Ramsey. He is very concel11ed about wetlands. This wetland buffer law the City of Ramsey is <br />trying to present is illegal. His legal counsel explains that if a marker is put on a person's <br />property as a buffer zone, a marker shows ownership. The City of Ramsey cannot show <br />ownership unless they buy that parcel or give tax consideration or something else that shows the <br />City has ownership; without that everything they are doing is illegal. One of the laws for <br />building and developing in this territory is that if your property has wetlands you need to have it <br />inspected and delineated and have a delineation report on any property marking with boundaries <br />where the wetland starts and high ground ends. That process has to be done in a growing season <br />with an ending date after the first frost. With this study, tests were done through November 15th <br />which is not a legal time to do surveys for wetlands. <br /> <br />Mr. Merlin Hunt, 17860 Nowthen Boulevard NW, stated he has 40 acres and sees by the map <br />that his 40 acres are classified as a Manage 1 category that is protected from development. The <br />buffering requirements are 20 feet with a maximum of 30 feet, which means 35 feet has to be <br />taken out because of the extra 15 feet needed for the Fire Department. He only has <br />approximately 10 acres of highland on the 40, and has it in 5 pieces. With the classification of <br />this ordinance it would elinllnate three of these pieces and he would only be left with possibly <br />two. He bought his property in 1995, and at that time it was just a meadow. There is no <br />permanent water on his property except for the pond he dug two years after he moved. Mr. Hunt <br />reviewed the water flow onto his property and explained even with all that flow it is still just a <br />meadow most of the time. It has been a meadow for 50 to 90 years. Mr. Hunt questioned why <br />Ius property is classified as something that cannot be developed when it is a meadow and has <br />been cut for years. He stated when he moved in there he would have classified what he bought as <br />the lowest level of Manage 3. He would like to be able to improve it, and if the City puts this <br />category on his wetland it cannot be developed. When he bought it there was no restriction like <br />this, and it takes a significant amount of value out of his property. He does not think is right; <br />actually he thinks it is illegal. The City is taking a natural resources inventory; that is not <br />Ramsey's inventory; it is the inventory of all the individual landowners. He hopes someone <br />backs off and gives him the lowest class, rather than the second highest class wetland. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt asked if there is a number associated with Mr. Hunt's site and if there is data <br />available that can be given to Mr. Hunt. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/April 5, 2007 <br />Page 11 of 22 <br /> <br />P11 <br />