Brandon Twp.- A local group that has been lobbying for stricter wetlands ordinances will probably not get their wish for expanded regulations.
Defending Our Natural Treasures (DONT) was formed this summer from several smaller groups concerned about recent plans for development in the township near M-15, including a proposed 144-unit apartment complex north of Solleys Appliance and Fireplace Center; a 122,000 square-foot retail center by Brandon Development Lockwood LLC, to be located south of Brandon High School; and a 15,000 square-foot retail center just south of the entrance to the Long Lake Village subdivision.
The group’s goal is responsible development.
Rick McAvinchey, representing DONT, spoke at the Oct. 23 planning commission meeting, offering the board and Building and Planning Director Tim Palulian information and comparisons to ordinances in other communities. One of McAvinchey’s and the group’s main concerns is the amount of buffer to protect wetlands and wildlife habitat. He said the sources he found all recommended much wider buffers for protection than the current 25-foot buffer the township uses.
‘We provided several other ordinances for wetlands and woodlands from townships around the state,? McAvinchey said. ‘Some of them have a lot more wetlands protections or a lot more written in their ordinance about protecting wetlands than ours does. Several seem to have the same 25-foot buffer ordinance. I hope our planning commission decides to evaluate our current protection ordinances and decide if ours are in need of improvement. I think they are.?
Palulian, however, strongly disagrees with what he says is a perception that the planning commission and building department are not being attentive to environmental issues when reviewing development proposals.
‘There is an adage that perception is reality,? he said. ‘The perception is not reality as in how we deal with environmental reviews… People feel we are allowing wetlands to be filled, and encroachments, and mass tree cutting to take place without consideration of potential damage as other people see it… We are paying attention and know exactly what is going on. We gave permission.?
Palulian says the township has more than 22,000 acres that includes about 2,000 acres of wet property. Of those 2,000 wet acres, 1,000 can be identified as open bodies of water? such as lakes and ponds. That leaves 1,000 acres to be defined as wetlands in regulated and unregulated form. He notes that during the past 15 years, the township has approved 16 developments that encompass 1,000 acres and 500 parcels. Half of those went through the planning commission as larger projects that didn’t qualify for simple divisions. Of those projects, less than 5 acres had disrupted wetlands that were issued a DEQ permit.
‘Where have we gone wrong?? Palulian asked. ‘I challenge anybody to show us in our decision making process where we were effectively asleep at the switch, causing a negative impact on the wetlands and affecting quality of life. That has not taken place.?
Palulian says the township and planning commission are obliged to make decisions within the context of their own regulations and engineering and planning standards. He notes that in terms of the law, a 25-foot wetland buffer is sufficient, and the courts have said that as the law relates to these types of setbacks, the township is not permitted to create a setback with a function of protecting a wetland, because a wetland otherwise regulated by the state falls within the state’s jurisdiction, not in the township’s. The township can require a setback, but it must stand on its own, in terms of need.
McAvinchey maintains the 25-foot buffer needs to be reevaluated.
‘Twenty-five feet is not enough to provide any reasonable protection to a wetland and to provide or maintain wildlife habitat. All of the information that I found shows that a minimum of 100 feet should be a buffer, especially around a stream. That should be an absolute minimum; other sources recommend a much wider buffer, depending on what you want to preserve.?
‘At this moment, I would suggest that is not going to happen,? said Palulian, who adds the township’s philosophy is to be pro-property rights. ‘I hope there’s no misunderstanding. It’s not the case that we don’t want input… All we’re saying is the need for additional regulation is unneccessary. We have plenty in place… Show me where the parking lot runoff has caused poisoning or damaging of an adjacent wetland.?