Agenda Packets - 2021/07/06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

% - 2 - The creation of the swimming pool at the northwestern tip of the project will surely require that chemical disinfection for pathogen be injected into the water system later because of storm water run-off supplies. The use of such chemical agents is not compatible with the aquatic organisms of plants and I believe this question should be addressed as a first order or business. As far as the water quality is concerned, it should not take a great deal of research for us to realize that if fifty percent of the marsh vegetation and its underlying soil are removed, a corresponding loss of filter and holding capacity will also be lost. This may not be a trivial point since musch more run-off will go into the marsh site after development than we see now and we may need the extra capacity. I am disturbed that the DNR may rule on this matter before getting its input from concerned citizens at a public hearing. It appears that such a decision will be made now on the basis of a limited number of meetings with a few city officials, ourselves and the developer that took place without public notification. I think that time will show that there are a number of citizens in the community at large who will not greet the developers plans with open arms and my own sense of fair play tells me that they should "have their day in court" at a hearing to plead their case before the primary protective state body. The motive to excavate the marsh is pragmatic and economic for the developer. His strategy will allow him to meet the city's storm -water run-off rate requirement (Resolution 983) with minimum, if any loss of building opportunity at the expense of the marsh resource. I do not think that the DNR with its basic charter to protect the states environment and being a court of last resort in this instance, should compromise its protective mandate for the economic aims of the developer or drainage needs of the community. I doubt that we should ever be a part to any scheme which allows a protected wetland to be adulterated to create dryer building sites. I understand that the Section of Waters will prioritize all inputs in its final ruling on the matter. With this in mind, I would like to state that a favorable ruling on the present proposal will be contrary to the wishes of the Section of wildlife as I perceive it. Perhaps leaving the marsh as it is now will have the effect of leaving a few non -material joys for the community at lzrac and vay indeve, leave something for the next generation, to hz,re atE say in. RG r to cc: Lloyd Knudson