01-30-2018 Board of AppealsThe Board of Adjustments and Appeals met in the Board Room at the Scandia Community
Center on Tuesday, January 30 beginning at 6:30pm.
Present: Council members Bob Hegland, Steve Kronmiller, Chris Ness, Jim Schneider and Mayor
Christine Maefsky.
Staff Present: City Administrator Neil Soltis, City Attorney Andy Pratt, and Sheriff Deputy
Brandon Yetter
Also Present: Joseph Reinhardt, Katherine Reinhardt, Paul Fahning, Jay Riggs of the Washington
Conservation District, and Planning Commission Chair Dan Squyres
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals met to continue the hearing of an appeal by Joseph and
Katherine Reinhardt of the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) Findings Report and Notice of
Decision denying an application for an after the fact wetland replacement plan on parcel#
31.032.2011.0039, Bliss Plan 2nd Division, Block 3, Lot 19. This decision was affirmed by letter
from the City Administrator, as the Local Governmental Unit representative, dated November
20, 2017.
Chair Maefsky provided guidelines for the hearing noting that the issue relates to the TEP
decision and not to the other zoning issues that have been raised by the Reinhardts and their
legal counsel.
Attorney Pratt provided a recap of the previous hearing and noted the distinction between the
City's land use ordinances and the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) rules that the TEP must
follow in making a decision. Pratt noted that there is a 60 -day deadline for the Board to act by
resolution on the appeal of the TEP decision/Local Governmental Unit representative decision.
Pratt commented on the factors considered by the TEP in making the decision and noted that
upholding the decision will leave the Department of Natural Resources Restoration Order
intact. Pratt reviewed the alternatives analysis required by WCA and reviewed the resolution
prepared that would uphold the TEP decision.
Board members questioned whether there is any basis for overruling the TEP decision,
discussed the applicability of the 60 -day rule, noted that the submittals to support overruling
the TEP decision relate to zoning issues that would need to be addressed during the variance
process, that WCA rules require proof of the alternatives are not feasible, and that the
submittals for a variance would resolve issues in this regard.
Pratt noted that the WCA rules provide for an appeal of the Board decision to the Minnesota
Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR).
Board members commented that the wetland is small and of low quality, that all
encroachments from the wetland setbacks have gone through the variance process, and that
the wetland was directly impacted by the driveway, and discussed approval of the Reinhardts'
plan in order to avoid the time and cost of seeking a variance.
Attorney Fahning noted that the pictures and video submitted show that alternate access is not
reasonable and prudent and questioned the additional requirements for requesting a variance.
Joe Reinhardt commented that the wetland impacted is a type 7 wetland and that the TEP acts
as consultants and that the Board has the authority to overrule the TEP decision.
Katie Reinhardt provided information on type 7 wetlands and noted that they have an
agreement in place to purchase wetland credits.
Kronmiller noted that the mitigation ratio can be up to 6-1 replacement.
Riggs commented that the wetland is a type 7 within a system with a category 1 designation
and that the application was for replacement at a 3-1 ratio which exceeds the WCA 2-1
replacement ratio also noting that the ratio can be up to 4-1 for after -the -fact permits.
Attorney Fahning commented that the engineering standards for a single driveway application
apply only to subdivision approvals and that the resolution is unclear as to what would happen
if the variance were to ultimately be granted or denied.
Motion by Schneider, seconded by Kronmiller to approve Resolution 01-30-18-01 Upholding the
Technical Evaluation Panel Findings Report under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act.
Board members questioned the need to go through the variance process, that there has been
no wetland delineation, and that the wetland was previously identified on maps. Vote 4-1
(Hegland). Motion carried.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted, Neil Soltis, Administrator / Clerk