Laserfiche WebLink
A. Applicant had no knowledge of the existence of the Consen’ation and <br />Flowage Easement at the time of the sale of his properU’ nor did his title <br />company advise him of the easement. <br />B. Applicant was not aware of the restrictive ordinances governing tree <br />removal within 0-75' of the lake but has willingly agreed to replant a like <br />number within the lakeshore protected zone. <br />C. Erosion control has been maintained while lakeshore yard was in a <br />disturbed state and absent of groundcover. <br />D. Jay Riggs. Environmental Specialist of Westwood Professional Services, <br />Inc. has prepared a wetland delineation report dated July 31. 1995 <br />redefining the wetland area within applicant's lakeshore yard. The <br />findings confirm that the original conservation area defined in the 1978 <br />Con.servation and Flowage Easement was only partially involved with a <br />wetland. <br />E. All disturbed areas have been replanted with suitable groundcover. The <br />wetland area has been planted with MnDOT mixture 25 and the <br />remainder of the disturbed yard located out of the newly defined wetland <br />area has been sodded. <br />F. There are no signs of contamination or erosion within the marshlike <br />wetland adjacent to the shoreline nor of applicant's shoreline area. <br />G. Section 10.56. Subdivision 16(1) 2, would allow for clearing of vegetation <br />to allow applicant to achieve a view^ of the shoreline. This was not the <br />intent of the applicant as the main goal was to create a lawn within the <br />lakeshore yard that could be maintained. <br />H. The newly defined wetland area shall be allowed to be restored to a <br />natural wetland. <br />Pace 2 of 5