pf10-017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Page 9 of 11 under the ordinance. 2) Gardening (if that is what we are going to call it) of the size and scope contemplated brings with it unanticipated nuisances (various pests, animals etc). 3) Pollution issues - soil testing. The regular moving of contaminated dirt causes unintended health consequences to neighbors - to say nothing of growing food in such soil. Soil testing therefore is required. 4) Lack of irrigation planning to prevent blowing dirt - irrigation also promotes biological activity in the soil that reduces smell. 5) Speaking of smell - the composting site appears not to be enclosed or covered. It is also of significant size to cause significant odor to the neighborhood especially on a windy day. 6) No screening (deciduous trees don't provide screening 7 months out of the year - while conifers do it for 12 months). I recall something about a requirement for a certain percentage of conifer trees being required on Roseville property. Nonetheless, I am quite positive that most of the affected neighbors want permanent screening. 7) Lack of agricultural consultant (e.g., U of M extension service) to advise the garden to prevent nuisances and to promote growing success. 8) Lack of public comment - this is a huge concern of mine. Size and scope materially alters the characteristics of the neighborhood. It also materially affects land values. Public needs input. The hair stands up on the back of my neck when I think about the lack of public notice so far. It is simply a fairness issue. 9) Lack of planning, the go ahead is way too soon - without amelioration of neighborhood concerns beforehand it appears that the church doesn't really care about the neighborhood - (the tax paying neighborhood BTW.) 10) Land use decisions of the church property are being determined by persons that don't live in the affected neighborhood. This is also a notice and fairness issue that needs addressing. This also counsels in favor of city council intervention. 11) Any accommodation of my concerns, (not specifically addressed by any communication thus far) does not address any concerns of other residents. What you agree to do for me might impose on my neighbor and might not be fair to him/her. It may also affect the value of his/her land. With this said, I wish to repeat that I personally am very willing to work with you and the church to accommodate my concerns (and hopefully that of my neighbors as they too deserve an active voice). Obviously, we do not have to go down the drastic and unfortunate road that sometimes accompanies situations where neighbors are unwilling to work together. This is why I have been vehemently focusing on public input. This is also why I believe that the city must intervene - as I am certain that it is mandated by law to do. I believe that all the neighbors are willing to work with the church. But in order to work with the church the neighborhood must be completely informed. Moreover, the neighborhood should also be informed by the figurehead of the church - the Pastor. As the church's figurehead, Pastor Dave should be a very prominent member of the neighborhood. Unfortunately, heretofore, this has not been the case in my experience or knowledge. Having Pastor Dave out and about introducing himself, shaking hands, explaining plans, and generally being a friend in the neighborhood would go along way to gamering support for the church - to say nothing of its "community garden" endeavor. �-. -� 4/ l9/2010