Laserfiche WebLink
Mike Gaffron <br /> From: James Wisker[jwisker@minnehahacreek.org] <br /> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 9:31 AM <br /> To: Mike Gaffron � � + � <br /> Cc: Steve Johnston; ZBCOMPANIES@aol.com <br /> Subject: Re: Wetland Buffer Question - Lots 1 &2, Block 1, Stonebay 6th <br /> . <br /> �;� <br /> Stone Bay Buffer <br /> Impact Plan.p... <br /> Mike, <br /> Steve and I have had similar cor.versations previously. The prob�em stems from the fact <br /> that the declaration used the incorrect site p1an. The site plan used in the recorded <br /> declaration shows where all the wetland buffers were required under the regulation. <br /> The site plan I have attached shows areas of proposed buffer impact and areas of buffer <br /> mitigation. It appears that buffer impacts were proposed and approved for this area. <br /> Since the buffer violations occurred last year, Steve and I had discussed the appropriate <br /> time to amend the declaration to show the "actual buffer". This should likely take place <br /> once the impacts are restored since there will be New Wetland Credits Created and <br /> additional buffer created. Specifically, the After the Fact mitigation plan proposed by <br /> Landform and approved last year by the Board has New Wetland Credit proposed within the <br /> 6th Addition just north west of lots 1 and 2. <br /> Let me know if you have questions. <br /> Thanks <br /> > James — <br /> > <br /> > I have a question about wnat buffer variances the MCWD approved for <br /> > Stonebay 6^th Addition. This is the short narrow road off of Willow <br /> > Drive, with a total of 4 building lots. The only documentation I have <br /> > regarding the buffer requirements in this area is the attached <br /> > Declaration which the applicants signed in July 2003, giving me the <br /> > impression and expectation that this declaration and attachment were <br /> > satisfactory to the MCWD. The attachment does not appear to allow <br /> > encroachment of the 35' MCWD buffer surrounding the tiny `polyp' of <br /> > wetland jutting toward Lots 1 and 2. This is the problem. <br /> > <br /> > The City in 2003 approved a variance to the (then) required 26' <br /> > wetland setback for this wetland, per the approved Stonebay site plan <br /> > (see attached) . We understand that MCWD has concurrent jurisdiction <br /> > with regards to the buffer requirement, and I cannot find any <br /> > documentation confirming that the proposed building encroachments into <br /> > the 35' buffer for Lots 1 and 2 were ever accepted by MCWD (see <br /> > attached buffer monument plan for a depiction of what was proposed) . <br /> > <br /> > We are in receipt of a survey and building permit application for Lots <br /> > 1 and 2. I am not anxious to issue that building permit if it will <br /> > result in a violation of MCWD buffer requirements. The survey (see <br /> > attached) shows the proposed house on Lot 1 extending to within a foot <br /> > or two of the actual delineated wetland, and both homes would be <br /> > significantly encroaching the buffer if the 35' buffer requirement <br /> > wasn't waived. <br /> > <br /> 1 <br />