Laserfiche WebLink
CCUNCfL MEETING <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DEC 1 1 1995 <br />DATECPscfe’b6«r^^g? <br />ITEM NO.: J ^ <br />Department Approval: <br />Name Jeanne A Mabusth <br />Title Building & Zoning Administrator <br />Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: <br />Zonine <br />Item Description: #208^ r\r*‘^wit Janice Cailan, 2915 Somerset Lane <br />Conditional Use Permit/Variance <br />Zoning District: <br />RR-IB <br />Total lot area = 3.25 acres <br />Drv area = 2.25 acres <br />Brief Review of Application: <br />Applicant proposes the excavation of approximately 6,250 s.f. or .143 acres of spoils <br />within a designated wetland (Type 2) to create an open water area. Review Exhibit D. <br />applicant’s addendum notes the reason for the wetland alteration is for future preservation, <br />drainage and enhancement. Based on applicants comments at the meeting. (Manning Commission <br />members felt the main purpose for the land alteration was to create an open water area for <br />aesthetic reasons. The original grading plan and addendum information did not address the usual <br />standards employed to create a pond to attract water fowl. <br />The wetland ordinance Section 10.55 provides no direction in dealing with applications involving <br />alterations of designated wetlands. This section of the code specifically deals with fiood plain <br />issue The COMP Plan specifically addresses need to preserve wetlands. Section 10.56 <br />discusses the functional qualities of a wetland and the need to maintain those functions and look <br />for enhancements should alterations take place. <br />A majority of the Planning Commission voted to deny applicants Conditional Use Permit and <br />Variance application (3 to 2 vote). Based on the following findings. <br />I Applicants presented no compelling reason to suppon the alterations within the designated <br />wetland area. <br />2. Applicants provided no acceptable benefits and it appeared to members that aesUietic <br />reasons were applicants principal concern. <br />3. Approval of this application would establish a negative precedent should other adjacent <br />land owners wish to alter designated wetland in same manner.