Laserfiche WebLink
� . <br /> The Bancor Group, Inc. �,� �, <br /> '�"'�lVi <br /> �Ianuary 14,2010 �� <br /> Minnehaha Croek Waterehecl Di�trict � � � ��� <br /> 1$202 Nfinnetonka Blvd. <br /> T��;phaven,MN, 5539i ��a <br /> Re� Rules F �� <br /> Dear Man.agers� <br /> I am writing as a mem6�tr of hhe Rulemaking Citiaen Task]�'orce, '.I'he falluwing ar�my <br /> cc�mmonf;�for your a}naidert�tion on the groposed changes to Rule�. <br /> I h�ve three cancerns: <br /> First is in secteon 2(s.� which states iu� part� <br /> "No person shall inetall an uriprovement or alterafiaan af the ehareiine of a wa#:er <br /> basin or. the bank o£a water.cour.se,including but nat limited to...° <br /> Tn talking to staf�'I,oday I learned for�he first time that this is intended to.includ�an� <br /> vegeta�ion removal within 20 f�ot Qf the shar�lino,�ven if someone is not altering, <br /> improving or atabzli�ing the shoxK;line itself, In c►theX worda,if I:he only activ.ity snmeone <br /> was going ta do was.to remwe a tree l,ocated].5 feot from the shore, they would need a <br /> permit. If in fact this is the intsnt then I suggest you revise sectaion 2(a) tc�make it cie�.r <br /> that this ie your intent. I don't think the�nguage i�cleat. <br /> Secan�dly,I dori t be.lieve this was the undez�tanding of the Citizen'Task_Fame. My <br /> recc>llecition is thaC all of our discussions abc�utvegetation r.em�val along the shoreline w�re . <br /> in.canjunction with ehoreline stabiliLation or maintenance, In other words I believe your <br /> SONA13 is i�n error and misleading in Chat I dan't beliove'the Citizen Task F�rce ever <br /> cliscussed the issue of whetl�er vege�tion removal within 2t�feet of t'ho �areline ahould be <br /> regulatecl w�en it is not paxt af a shorelinc z�trabilization or mainteuance pr.ojec�. <br /> My third ccrncorn xeltxtes to Che comments T made at your Bcfard meating on January?,201U <br /> regarciing Rule G. As you wili recall T eug�estod that steeP rayines which are the resalt of <br /> runoff anc�onl.y hold water during heavy r�ins should be excluded from the de$nition af a <br /> °Watercnurse". Agsin if you look�t the above quated language in sectiion 2(�it would <br /> appear i:hat any vegetaCian wil.hin 2U£eet of tho edge of thst type of ravane would be <br /> regulated under�his rule. <br /> I am suppnrtive of the]ax�guege cantained in Lho propoaed rule to r�gulate acLiv.ities within <br /> 2U feet of a shoreline af a creek ar}ake wh�n there iH an applicr,tion for improvemc3nt or <br /> mainl.enancc of the shoreline aIong that watert�o�y. However, to suggest that no vegetation <br /> remaval can occur. within 2Q feet of a wate�eourse in�nq in�tance is a rulo change tltat has <br /> t�ever been discu�ssed, to the hest af my knawledge, by either fihe public or your advieory <br /> committee�and.I would urge thaG thi�brc�d expansian of power noi:ba cansidor,ed until <br /> there has h�en a full discussion with the public: <br /> Tki�nk yau fox pllawing me an opportunity to share with you some of my concerns. <br /> Sincer v, <br /> 15z� 94eh Ianct�.E. <br /> VCinh�;�pniis,Nlit�nc�tsCt <br /> S��r� avid P. ewman <br /> Prc�sident <br /> �>ftone.76:3 792-��)74 <br /> f�x 7C3?`22-897(i <br />