Laserfiche WebLink
explain why. My interpretation ofthe rational in providing <br />a model ordinance would be to promote reasonable compliance, <br />and to provide a prototype for communities to use as a <br />reference. Therefore I would logically deduce from the <br />DNR's expertise in the area of harmonically developing with <br />minimal adverse environmental impacts, that areas currently <br />undeveloped, especially those natural areas such as <br />wetlands, streams, rivers, and lakes, extremely susceptible <br />to pollution and deprivation, should consider their <br />guidelines as MINIMUM standards for adequately protecting <br />these very vulnerable, unrenewable resources. <br />Logically there would be room for communities without <br />especially sensitive areas, or for areas already <br />considerably developed, to allow for "flexibility" upon <br />consideration for future development. <br />In all consciousness, I can not accept the <br />deterioration of the rural areas, risking the quality of our <br />environmental lakes, or detracting from our view of the <br />natural places which are all very much what Lino Lakes is <br />today, in exchange for a plan to quickly urbanize the area <br />in much the same manner as "similar" cities, as our adopted <br />plan for tomorrow. <br />At the Jan.11 P.& Z. meeting Alan Brixius implied and <br />seemed to stress the fact that most of the guidelines were <br />more stringent than the "83" ordinance. I don't feel that <br />because the last updated ordinance fails to provide for <br />adequate protections as set forth by the DNR model, <br />especially if this would allow high density developing to <br />occur in areas in close proximity to our lakes and wetlands, <br />