Objection to Proposed Development at 1441 Lake Lucy RdTo: Sharmeen Al-Jaff
From: Christopher W. Mozina
6670 Pointe Lake Lucy
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: 1441 Lake Lucy Road – Proposed Development
Purpose: Objection to the RPBCWD Conditional Approval and Recommendation to Deny Proposed Morin
Development Project.
Dear City Planning Commissioners:
First, I would like to acknowledge the long history of the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District
(RPBCWD) Board putting significant time, energy and expertise in fulfilling its “Mission: Protect. Manage.
Restore. Water Resources.” Simply said, the RPBCWD performs a vital function for our community and
our environment and is deserving of our thanks and praise. I’m certainly grateful that the Watershed
rejected the original two home construction proposal on the Morin property. With that said, I believe
the RPBCWD should not have provided Conditional Approval for even a single home
development. According to the District’s 10 Year Plan, in section 9.11 Wetland Management
Program, it states,
“Although it varies throughout the state, it is estimated that Minnesota has lost about half of
the pre-settlement wetlands with some areas of the state experiencing as great as 90% loss. In
Hennepin and Carver Counties, more than 50% of the historic wetlands have been drained or
developed to different land uses. Minnesota Statutes section 103A.201, subdivision 2(b) sets
out a goal of “no net loss” of wetlands. …Despite this no-loss goal identified…remaining wetland
areas continue to be at risk for conversion to other land uses or for a decrease in quality as
development and agricultural pressure encroach…Of the 408 respondents to the Riley Purgatory
Bluff Creek Watershed District Community Survey, 176 of them considered wetlands to be one
of the most valuable water resources.”
With all the great work done by the Watershed, given its Mission, and given the statistics above, I simply
do not believe that the benefit of this single family home invasive construction in such close proximity
(and indeed penetrating within the Wetland A Buffer), to such a valuable resource, can be justified, nor
should it have been conditionally approved. Why is the District exposing the community to risk of
further Wetland degradation? Why would the City of Chanhassen?
In my view, and in the two documents provided to the Watershed from the Task Force, the Watershed
could have focused more intently on its Vision, Goals and Strategies, as presented in Sections 3.1 and
3.2 of its 10 year plan. They state, “The District views all the following elements as essential to achieving
its mission:….Data collection and analysis to ensure decisions are based on sound science.” In section
3.2 Goals and Strategies, it specifically spells out the following goal: “Collect data and use the best
available science to recommend and support management decisions.” I am well aware, and indeed the
Task Force included numerous concerns in the two documents provided to the City Planning
Commission and to the District, that there were numerous admissions of where significant errors were
evidenced in the data used to support the applicant’s proposal. I believe these findings of fact should
have clearly prevented the Watershed from providing a conditional approval. Section 3.2 goes on to
state, “Include sustainability and the impacts of climate change in District projects, programs and
planning.” I’m seeking assurances that the “Mid-Century” estimates of precipitation were used by the
District in arriving at their decision to provide conditional approval. If not, why not given the stated goal
of the District?
The RPBCWD goals include:
“8. Protect, manage and restore water quality of District Lakes and creeks to maintain designated uses.
9. Preserve and enhance the quantity, as well as the functions and values of District wetlands.
10. Preserve and enhance habitat important to fish, waterfowl, and other wildlife.
12. Protect and enhance the ecological function of District floodplains to minimize adverse impacts.
13. Limit the impact of stormwater runoff on receiving waterbodies.”
I believe that the Morin development does not enhance the District’s ability to achieve these goals, but
instead, clearly violates all of these goals. As a result, I believe there are numerous findings of fact, and
countless violations of the goals of the Watershed District to warrant that the revised Morin proposal
should not have been conditionally approved. Importantly, I want to ensure the City Planning
Commission recognizes the substantial attempts to inform the District of these concerns, and indeed to
respond in writing to the concerns, and those raised here, before rendering its own decision.
I strongly recommend against the Morin development proposal.
Sincerely,
Christopher Mozina
315-622-8119