07-08-2002 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Orono Planning Commission Page 4 June 13,2002 from Mr. Weinberger’s report, it is probable that the grade extending laterally down the face of this illegal “side-lot" fill exceeds slope guidelines as well and, even if some is allowed to remain, this fill must be re-graded accordingly. The Stephensons Actions Have Caused and Will Continue to Cause Adverse Natural Resource Impacts that the City Must Not Endorse The Miimesota Environmental Rights Act, Minn. Stat. § 116B.09, (“MERA”) requires the City to consider any alleged impairment, pollution or destruction of air, water, land or other natural resources and provides that the City may not approve any conduct that has, or is likely to have, such an effect on natural resources, so long as there are reasonable and prudent alternatives available consistent with the legitimate and reasonable health, safety and welfare concerns. MERA does not allow economic considerations alone to justify conduct that is likely to cause impairment, pollution or destruction of the state’s natural resources. Here, the Stephensons have violated the Watershed District’s Erosion Control Plan, incorporated by reference into the CUP. That violation led to the issuance of a Stop Work Order, which the Stephensons simply ignored. In addition, as noted, the Stephensons began filling and grading work before silt fencing was in place, thereby jeopardizing downstream ecological resources due to uncontrolled sediment erosion. The Stephensons have also performed work, including the use of heavy mechanical equipment, in the wetland setback, which is obviously intended to serve as a buffer to protect the nearby wetland habitat. According to the Watershed District staff, the Stephensons ’ work “heavily compacted" soils near the wetland area and that inadvertent wetland filling may have occurred as a result of the Stephensons ’ violations of the erosion control plan. Further, since the existing grade of the filled hillside is not consistent with the contour plan approved by the City and the slopes and volumes of new material (presumably more susceptible than native materials to erosion) may not be consistent with the sound engineering principles that presumably underlie the City ’s approval of the plan prepared in accordance with the original CUP application, further impairment of the wetland may be expected unless the inappropriate grading and volume of fill are corrected. Finally, the enclosed photographs support Mr. Chalfen’s observations and his belief that some of the Stephensons ’ work (particularly tree and brush removal) was carried out within the delineated wetland (that is, not the wetland buffer, but the wetland itselQ. There is no evidence in the record that the Stephensons received any authorization to perform work within the wetland itself. 2226428vl A