Re: probable violation/MCWD - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Cc: Ben Carlson<ben@kiolhau�env.com>;pkmoore8@�mail.com Subject: RE: 14-600- Notice of Probable Violation Beth, As I highlighted in my voice message to you on Friday,October 2, I had a few questions regarding the attached Noncompliance Letter. I will admit that this letter comes to as a bit of a surprise. When I purchased the property in September 2014,the survey made no mention of a wetland. After making the decision against remodeling the existing home built in 1974, instead electing to demolish and build a new structure. i'he perrnit pull�d from the,+��ty�f 4rt�°ro�as we11 as t�+e rnc�re d�tailed etevati��t��rv�y,�nce ag�in rtc�wetland tnr<�s tr�en'ti��ed�An MCWD permit for this project was issued on January 14, 2015 (permit attached here). Copies of this permit were sent both to the applicant(Kirk& Pam Moore)and to the contractor(Dorian Thompson).The permit included stipulations that a wetland delineation must be performed; updated plans with the wetland boundaries, required buffers,and required buffer monuments must be submitted; a property declaration for the buffers must be recorded at Hennepin County offices; and the buffer monuments must be installed. We generally require these items to be completed before we issue permits, but in this instance we instead just made them stipulations of the permit since no work was proposed by the shoreline and we wanted to help accommodate your construction schedule. Upon receiving the your e-mail, I spoke with Dorian Thompson, my general contractor,to inquire if he had knowledge of a prior wet land. He informed me that sin�e ure had to disturb a certain perce�tt��+�t�t��rtt� wlt�r�u�re k�t�rcked the olr�er+6,�squar�foot�ous�and placed the new�rnaller�,6t�t sq�are f�t h�use tFte we had t�a h��'��ri�1 delirteatiort su�lre�cdmpleted. Dorian was correct in explaining that an MCWD Erosion Control permit is required for any work that disturbs over 5,000 square feet or 50 cubic yards of earth during construction. However, not all Erosion Control permits require a wetland delineation. In this case, it was the construction of a new residence with a larger footprint than the previous residence (as described in the permit application,attached here)that triggered the need for a wetland delineation and wetland buffers.This is why the permit that we issued was both an Erosion Control permit and a Wetland Protection permit. If I understand correctly,the catalyst of the delineation survey,and ultimately the attached letter,was a percentage of land disturbance. If 1 elect�d tt�remc�€lei[he pr�s�r dwelting,there wc�u�!h�u�n�t been a need t�ra sunrey,and my prc�perty wouad ncrt have a w�t lan�delineated, Depending on the scale of the remodeling work, a wetland delineation survey may have still been required so that MCWD and the City of Orono could verify that it would not disturb the wetland. Wetland buffers would not have been required,though. Item 4 in the attached directs the Wetland Protection Rule,section 9 requires wetland buffer signage. Upon inspection of the property to the south and north on mine,there is no such markings highlighting the existence of a wetland buffer. The attached approved wetland boundaries document provided by Mr. Carlson,would suggest the delineation and buffer would extend to these properties. 1 cc�n�lucl�d tF�at the only reasc�n it dc�es�L�b�ca��e t��tt+�t»es F��ve been in exi�t�rt��i�i��''19?f1s,t�r there has na�t!�n percentage disruptic�n a�f s�ii.Correct,we have not required wetland buffers on 900&960 Partenwood because we have not received notice of any work on site (like the construction of larger residences)that triggers our Wetland Protection rule,which was not in place in the 1970s.Thi� seems'arbitrary. MCWD's permitting authority only enables/requires us to enforce buffers for projects that have taken place since the rule was adopted but I understand why you feel this is an arbitrary distinction. I will take note of your comment. Also,the setting of the boundaries through the test conducted my Mr.Carlson also seem arbitrary. If this test was conducted last September when I purchased the property,the boundary would have been higher up the lake shore due to high water levels. If the test would have been conducted the fall of 2013 when the lake was 2 feet below normal levels,the boundary would have been below the current lake shore.single testing during a time when the rolling 30 day average for rainfall was above average seems inappropriate,and likely to influence the hydric test.See attached 930 Partenwood report received August 19,2015. 1.dea n�t questior�the�xistence t�f Hyd�ic�r�as,Just tl1�:bC>urtdary based aff single te�t''. 11�uch I�ke c�n�luctir�g the suruey'onfy�##��-new c�r��tcuctic�n,thi�s+eem arbitrary:We require that 4