Laserfiche WebLink
MINVT)CS <br />CITY CO[INCTl, <br />JULY 12, 2001 <br />would be developed. Sculley reported that his father asked where the run-off <br />from the Maplewood property would go. He now knows the answer -their <br />property. Sculley indicated that water from Vadnais Heights, Little Canada, <br />and Maplewood flow right into his property. Sculley asked where the <br />Maplewood developers got the permits allowing them to direct run-off into his <br />property? Sculley reported that the water is blocked by the ditch. He pointed <br />out that he cannot at some of his land due to the flooding of a road that existed <br />since 1952. <br />Aichinger noted the following facts that need to be considered when <br />questioning how the present situation developed: <br />1. 'fhe Water Conservation Act did not exist in the 1980's and at that time the <br />Corps of Engineers was the only designated authority. <br />2. The Watershed issued a grading permit for the Pilitage development and <br />the berm was constructed after the fact. <br />3. At that time of that development, wetlands could be filled. <br />4. At that time, the Watershed was concerned about flood levels. 'T'hey only <br />issue permits for filling. <br />5. to the late 1980's, the Watershed changed its philosophy Yo emphasize no <br />net loss of wetland area. <br />Pogreba suggested that the berm be opened up ou the west side and allow <br />water to flow into the area. <br />Sculley indicated that his property was farmed for years without any problem. <br />His father created a ditch running north and south that took care of any rwi-off <br />problems. Water wasn't being forced out of that area. Sculley stated that he <br />wanted Little Canada and Maplewood to correct the situation that he felt was <br />done deliberately. <br />Greg Maranda reported that water is also being forced onto his property from <br />County Road U. <br />Scalze indicated that the City looks to the Watershed to be the policing agency <br />for issues such as this. Scalze felt that the berm has diverted the natural flow <br />of water to the west. She felt this results in a taking of property. Scalze felt <br />the Sculley property was now serving as an undefined ditch. <br />Sharon Sculley presented pictures of the area taken on May 1". Sculley felt <br />that it was not only the berm that is the problem, but increased development <br />has resulted in an artificial wetland that is impacting their property. <br />Fahey stated that a wetland is a wetland, and suggested that the focus should be <br />how we can improve the existing waterflow conditions. State law has <br />