5. Reinhardt Replacement Plan TEP_Findings_ReportMinnesota Wetland Conservation Act
Technical Evaluation Panel Findings Report
Date(s) of Site
10-17-17 LG U: Scandia
Visit/Meeting:
County: Washington LGU Contact: Neil Soltice
Project Name: Reinhardt Driveway Phone #: 651-330-8220
Location of Project: Email
(attach map if possible) 45.222098, -92.880508 Address: iris@mnwcd.or�
TEP ATTENDEES:
LGU: Neil Soltice
SWCD: Jay Riggs
BWSR: Ben Meyer
DNR: Becky Horton
OTHER ATTENDEES:
Jim Shaver, CMSCWD
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE OF MEETING:
The TEP met offsite to review the wetland replacement application.
OTHER ATTENDEES:
TYPE OF MEETING: check all applicable
® Office ❑ On -Site ® Phone Conference ® E -Mail ❑ Other:
TEP FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1:
On October 17, 2017 the WCA TEP met at the Washington Conservation District Office to review the Reinhardt
Driveway after -the -fact Wetland Replacement Plan Application. Jim Shaver participated via conference call. The TEP
meeting was discussed with the DNR via phone on October 25, 2017 - no DNR jurisdicitonal waters are directly effected
by this fill.
The TEP summarized the sequencing discussion to justify the wetland fill into three primary arguments: Septic system
access, storage access, and rear property access. Each of these arguments were discussed.
Septic System Access: The applicant suggests the driveway is needed to provide access to the 201 System Septic Tanks.
According to City staff, the building setback was set to allow access from the south side of the newer portion of the
house. Further, a follow-up call to a local septic pumping service indicated pumping hoses could be extended up to 500
feet, so the tanks can be pumped from the front of the house. Accordingly the TEP asserts no wetland impacts are
needed for Septic Access and the avoidance alternative is feasible.
Storage Access: Access from the south side of the house or alternative storage locations make the avoidance
alternative feasible.
Rear Property Access: The TEP deferred to the City to assess if the rear portion of the property was buildable in order to
determine if this fill was avoidable. As noted in the attached letter, "Lot 19 cannot be sold or developed separately
from the Reinhards's parcels. The City's ordinance permits only one driveway per property, so the Reinhardt's could not
develop a second driveway on Lot 19 to serve the property." This makes the purpose and need of the wetland fill
invalid and the avoidance alternative is the only option from a WCA TEP perspective.
Accordingly the TEP recommends denial of the Wetland Replacement Plan Application and that removal of the fill be
1 TEP Findings should be a meaningful concise summary detailing the project conditions, technical data, and what rules
apply. The TEP recommendation should be clear,based on rule and best professional judgement.
Rev. 12/17/2013