Petition of Charles C. Webber

File No. 94-7-214

This contested case involves the denial of an application for a permit to place fill for the construction of a dwelling in a wetland located in Denton Township, Roscommon County, Michigan. The Application for Permit, filed May 20, 1994, was denied under the provisions of the former Goemaere-Anderson Wetland Protection Act, MCL 281.701 et seq.; MSA 18.595(51) et seq., currently Part 303, Wetland Protection, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, (NREPA), 1994 PA 451, as amended. The Petitioner, Mr. Charles C. Webber, requested a hearing pursuant to Part 303 of the Act. In an attempt to resolve this matter the Parties participated in a mediation conference.

A contested case hearing was held on March 22, 1996, in Gaylord, Michigan. Pursuant to Section 85 of the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act, this is the Final Determination and Order of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality in this matter. MCL 24.285; MSA 3.560(185).

This case was heard under 1994 PA 451, as amended, Part 303, Wetland Protection, MCL 324.30301 et seq.; MSA 13A.30301 et seq. and the administrative rules. On October 1, 1995, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality was created by Executive Order 1995-18. Through this Executive Order, the authority to administer this Part of the NREPA was transferred from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) to the Department of Environmental Quality (Department). The hearing on this matter was conducted pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, 1969 PA 306, as amended; MCL 24.201 et seq.; MSA 3.560(101) et seq.

Charles C. Webber, the Applicant for a permit, is the owner of the subject real property and the Petitioner in this case. The professional staff of the Department is responsible for administering Part 303 and is the Respondent in this case. The Petitioner represented himself throughout the course of these proceedings. The Respondent was represented by Richard J. Sikkenga, Contested Case Supervisor, Land and Water Management Division.

The Petitioner testified on his own behalf and submitted exhibits to the record. The Respondent presented one witness, Mr. Fred W. Gottschalk, Supervisor, Land and Water Management Division, and also entered exhibits into the record. A listing, "Exhibits," with a description of each exhibit entered, is attached to this Final Determination and Order. The Petitioner's exhibits are labelled "P"; and the Department's exhibits are labelled "R". Joint exhibits are labelled "J".

The Petitioner is the owner of real property located in Denton Township, Roscommon County, Michigan. Petitioner's property is part of a subdivision containing nine platted lots called Seneca Village #2. Mr. Webber owns Lots 12 and 13 of the subdivision and currently has a home on Lot 13. Lot 13 is approximately 80 feet wide at the front and 190 feet deep, with the back boundary width of approximately 90 feet. Exhibits P-3 and P-4. In 1993 Mr. Webber purchased the adjacent parcel, Lot 12, from the subdivision developer, Donald Widdis, with the intent of building a house. The roadside portion of Lot 12 is upland to approximately 50 feet deep, with the remainder being wetland. In his Application For Permit, Mr. Webber requests to "place approximately 475 cubic yards of fill material in a 76 by 85 foot wetland area to raise the elevation to the level of an existing lot . . .." Exhibits R-2 and P-7. The Application was denied by Department staff in a certified letter dated August 22, 1994. Exhibits P-8 and R-4. The basis of the denial is twofold:

1) Adverse impacts have not been satisfactorily mitigated, as referenced by the enclosed letter.

2) The cumulative impact from similar existing and anticipated activities is significant, necessitating an easement on remaining wetlands.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Pursuant to the stipulations entered into by the Parties during the pre-hearing conference on January 23, 1996, I find, as a Matter of Fact, the Petitioner is a proper applicant for a permit and his Application For Permit was processed correctly by the Department.

The next issue presented is whether or not the subject property is a wetland as defined by the Act. Wetland is defined in Section 30301(d) as:

`Wetland' means land characterized by the presence of water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances does support wetland vegetation or aquatic life and is commonly referred to as a bog, swamp, or marsh . . ..

A determination that a property is or is not a wetland is

indicated by three criteria: See, 1988 AACS, R 281.924 (2)(a) and (b).

1) The type of vegetation
2) Hydrological indicators for water, and
3) The soil characteristics.

Mr. Webber's property is in a subdivision, Seneca Village #2, where he owns Lots 12 and 13 and has a home on Lot 13. Currently, there are five developed lots, with four homes on filled parcels in the nine lot platted subdivision. Mr. Widdis currently owns three of the vacant lots, all requiring fill if they are to be improved. The Parties agree there are wetlands that would be filled on Lot 12 if the proposed activity was permitted.

Following a site inspection of the property, the Department reported the area is characterized by wetland vegetation, including Sensitive Fern, Alnus Rugosa and Fraxinus Sp. Exhibit R-3 and J 1- 9.

I find, as a Matter of Fact, the proposed fill area of the subject parcel of land is a wetland as defined in Part 303 of the Act.

The second issue is whether this wetland parcel is subject to regulation Part 303 of the Act. Subsection (d)(i) and (d)(ii) of Section 30301, MCL 324.30301(d)(i)(ii), provides criteria which must be found before the Department may regulate a wetland. It must be either:

(i) Contiguous to the Great Lakes or Lake St. Clair, an inland lake or pond or a river or stream.

(ii) Not contiguous to the Great Lakes, an inland lake or pond, or a river or stream; and more than 5 acres in size; except this subdivision shall not be of effect, except for the purpose of inventory, in counties of less than 100,000 population until the department certifies to the commission of natural resources it has substantially completed its inventory of wetlands in that county.

Mr. Gottschalk testified the subject parcel is part of a larger wetland complex of approximately 380 acres which is contiguous to Houghton Lake. I find, as a Matter of Fact, the project site contains regulated wetlands which are contiguous to Houghton Lake.

The Petitioner's activity involves placing fill material in a regulated wetland. Under Section 30304 of Part 303 of the Natural Resources Environmental Protection Act, all such activities are prohibited without a permit, as follows:

Except as otherwise provided by this Act or by a permit obtained from the Department under sections 30306 to 30314, a person shall not do any of the following:

(a) Deposit or permit the placing of fill material in a wetland.

(b) Dredge, remove, or permit the removal of soil or minerals from a wetland.

(c) Construct, operate, or maintain any use or development in a wetland.

(d) Drain surface water from a wetland.

In order to issue a permit for the activity requested by the Petitioner, the criteria of Section 30311 of the Act, MCL 324.30311(1), must be considered.

(1) A permit for an activity listed in section 30304 shall not be approved unless the department determines that the issuance of a permit is in the public interest, that the permit is necessary to realize the benefits derived from the activity, and that the activity is otherwise lawful.

Because the proposed activity is for fill in a regulated wetland, I find a permit is necessary to realize the benefits derived from the proposed activity. There was no testimony indicating the proposed activity is not otherwise lawful. I find, the proposed activity is otherwise lawful.

A determination of whether the project is in the public interest is made by applying criteria enumerated in Part 303, Wetland Protection, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA). These criteria are found in Section 30311(2) as follows:

(2) In determining whether the activity is in the public interest, the benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal shall be balanced against the reasonably foreseeable detriments of the activity. The decision shall reflect the national and state concern for the protection of natural resources from pollution, impairment and destruction. The following general criteria shall be considered:

(a) The relative extent of the public and private need for the proposed activity.

Mr. Webber intends to build a new house on the site. While he has a homesite adjoining the proposed building site, it no longer serves his needs and his goal is to build a suitable retirement home on Lot 12.

Mr. Gottschalk testified the need for the proposed activity is personal and it, in and of itself, would not have a negative impact upon the environment, but when considered cumulatively with other fills in the area the public has an interest in maintaining water quality and protecting the wetlands. There does not appear to be any public need for the proposed project. On the other hand, there was no objection to the proposed project as a result of the required notice. The area is zoned residential and there have been permits granted for fill on other lots within the platted subdivision.

I find, as a Matter of Fact, the public need for the proposed project is limited to the generation of employment and addition to the local tax base for the support of local services. I find the private need for the proposed project is relatively great because the Petitioner's current house is not suitable to his retirement needs.

(b) The availability of feasible and prudent alternative locations and methods to accomplish the expected benefits from the activity.

Mr. Gottschalk testified the feasible and prudent alternative location is to place no fill and the Webber's remain at their present home site. When asked whether fill would be allowed on Lot 12 if Mr. Webber outside the subdivision, Mr. Gottschalk testified a permit would probably be issued. As Mr. Webber already has a home in the subdivision, and assumedly enjoys living in this neighborhood, it is neither feasible, nor prudent, to expect him to relocate to another area and then apply for a permit on Lot 12. Furthermore, the record shows that every remaining undeveloped lot requires fill to build a house. Testimony also shows the subject property would require less fill then any other remaining undeveloped parcel.

Despite the representation to Mr. Webber that his request would be considered if he could get Mr. Widdis to sign a conservation easement, Mr. Gottschalk testified it is Department "policy" to deny Applications for projects like Mr. Webber's. The rational being the Webber's Lots 12 and 13 are viewed as a whole, not as separate subdivided parcels, and the Petitioner has made a "reasonable use" of his property. In other words, the project would be denied as a matter of "policy" because Mr. Webber has a home on his property and a consideration would not be made for fill and construction on the separate parcel because of its location in relation to his existing lot and house. This rational is flawed and the Department must consider the lots as separate parcels under the facts of this case.

Mr. Gottschalk testified that "reasonable use" is allowed as to the land owned, regardless of platting. No additional wetland fill would be allowed pursuant to Department policy. He further testified this decision is consistent with other decisions on properties similar to the one at issue. There was no testimony the proposed fill plans were objected to by the Department.

I find, as a Matter of Fact, a feasible and prudent alternative method and location to accomplish the proposed activity does not exist. The Petitioner could not do less and build on this separately platted parcel. I find, as a Matter of Fact, it is not a feasible and prudent alternative for the Petitioner to remain in his current home, or purchase property outside his neighborhood.

(c) The extent and permanence of the beneficial or detrimental effects which the proposed activity may have on the public and private uses to which the area is suited, including the benefits the wetland provides.

The current use of the property by the general public is limited because the Petitioner owns the Lot. Mr. Webber testified his present use of the property is aesthetic only; the ecology of Lot 12 is much the same as that of his present location on adjacent Lot 13. If the proposed project is permitted, the Petitioner will use the site as his primary residence and will leave the backyard portion, some 64 feet, in its natural wetland state. He intends that both Lots 12 and 13 will have natural aesthetics in the backyards, measuring the same depth and remaining part of a larger area of wetlands that currently exist behind the subdivision.

The Project Review Report under item 15(b) provides, "[i]f wetland is involved and if the project is permitted, is there likely to be unacceptable disruption to the aquatic resources . . .," Mr. Domke marked the box "no". Under Items 16 and 18, Mr. Domke indicated the proposed activities would have only minimal adverse effects when performed separately. The current use of the property by the general public is non-existent and, currently, there is little private use of the property. The proposed fill, using the Petitioner's plan, would permanently disrupt an area of wetland measuring approximately 85 feet by 76 feet.

I find, as a Matter of Fact, wetlands values would be impacted to a minimal, immeasurable degree if the proposed project were to be completed. I find, the private use would be greatly enhanced as a result of the proposed project.

(d) The probable impact of each proposal in relation to the cumulative effect created by other existing and anticipated activities in the watershed.

The watershed at issue in this case is that of Houghton Lake. There was no direct evidence presented regarding the actual size of the Houghton Lake watershed, although Mr. Webber testified his lots back up to a larger wetland of 380 acres. Mr. Gottschalk testified to a concern regarding the project's cumulative effect due to the area's growing population and development pressure. Mr. Domke also cited this concern in Item 17 of the Project Review Report. The Department is concerned the cumulative effect of similar completed, or proposed, projects appears to be threatening the natural wetlands ecology of the area.

Mr. Gottschalk testified his primary concerns about filling the area are cumulative adverse effects on water circulation and water quality. He testified the physical presence of fill will displace water and water will have to move around it. From a water quality perspective, his concern is the removal of wetland filtering ability, nutrient uptake and erosion control. Mr. Gottschalk opined that fish or wildlife would eventually be affected as a result of the cumulative effect of fills in the wetland.

Mr. Gottschalk testified the fill for some of the lots in the subdivision was not done through the permitting process. To compensate and reduce the cumulative effect of lost wetlands due to past alleged illegal filling, the Department has conditionally denied the Petitioner's Application For Permit. A conservation easement is being sought through the Petitioner for the 38 acres owned by Mr. Widdis and bordering Mr. Webber's lots.

The cumulative effect of fill on Lot 12 must be considered as required by the Act. However, cumulative effect is only one of the elements in Section 30311 to be considered when reviewing an application for permit. All of the elements outlined in Section 30311(a)--(i) are of equal importance and must be balanced in making a decision on an application for permit.

I find, as a Matter of Fact, considering: 1) the 380 acre wetland complex directly adjoining the subject property; 2) the amount of fill being requested for the size of the Lot; 3) Mr. Webber's commitment to leave the back portion of the Lot in its natural wetland setting, and; 4) the proximity of the proposed project is on the fringe of the wetland complex, some distance from the Lake: means little additional, if not immeasurable, cumulative impact will occur to the Houghton Lake watershed as a result of the project.

(e) The probable impact on recognized historic, cultural, scenic, ecological or recreational values on the public health or fish or wildlife.

The record does not address historic or cultural impacts and there appear to be none. The scenic value is subjective, but Mr. Webber wants to preserve a portion of the site in its current state. Exhibit P-2. While Mr. Gottschalk testified there would be an impending, probable impact on fisheries or wildlife as a result of the cumulative effects of the project, the record does not support that contention. The public health will be unaffected.

The impact on ecological value is discussed previously in subsection (b) and (c). I find, as a Matter of Fact, there will be no probable impact on the above-referenced criteria.

(f) The size of the wetland being considered.

The subject property measures approximately 85 feet wide and 190 feet deep, with all of the site, except the front 50 feet, being wetland. If the proposed project is permitted an area 76 x 85 feet would be filled.

(g) The amount of remaining wetland in the general area.

Mr. Gottschalk testified while the wetland on Lot 12 is a part of a much larger wetland complex, development pressure in the area is eroding away at the wetland resources. Although no evidence was given regarding the total amount of wetland in the general area, evidence does indicate the Petitioner's property borders a wetland complex of approximately 400 acres.

(h) Proximity to any waterway.

The Petitioner's Lot is part of the Seneca Village #2 subdivision, which is contiguous to some 400 acres of wetland that is connected to Houghton Lake through the Prudenville canals.

(i) Economic value, both public and private, of the proposed land change to the general area.

The proposed construction of a house will have economic value, both public and private. The project would provide construction work for building tradesmen, add to the local tax base, and create a need for goods and services by those persons occupying the land. The economic value of the Lot would be increased if the Lot were buildable.

In balancing the above factors, I find, as a Matter of Fact, the proposed project is in the public interest.

Sec. 30311(3) In considering a permit application, the department shall give serious consideration to findings of necessity for the proposed activity which have been made by other state agencies.

There have been no findings of necessity made by other state agencies.

Sec. 30311(4) A permit shall not be issued unless it is shown that an unacceptable disruption will not result to the aquatic resources. In determining whether a disruption to the aquatic resources is unacceptable, the criteria set forth in section 3 and subsection (2) shall be considered. A permit shall not be issued unless the applicant also shows either of the following:

(a) The proposed activity is primarily dependent upon being located in the wetland.

(b) A feasible and prudent alternative does not exist.

The Project Review Report prepared by Mr. Domke indicates an unacceptable disruption to aquatic resources would not occur if approximately 400 to 475 cubic yards of fill were placed on Lot 12. Exhibit R-3. Mr. Gottschalk opined he believes a disruption to the aquatic resource would not occur as a result of the project, except when considered with the cumulative effects of other similar projects. However, no evidence is in the record which supports the Department's contention the project's cumulative impact will result in an unacceptable disruption to the aquatic resource associated with Houghton Lake.

Based on the foregoing, I find, as a Matter of Fact, the proposed activity will not cause an unacceptable disruption to the aquatic resources. Although the proposed activity is not wetland dependant, or something that can only be performed in a wetland, the wetland must be utilized to some degree.

It appears the Department's denial of the application is based on its prior encounters, including allegations of illegal fill in the subdivision, with the property's previous owner, Mr. Widdis. In fact, the objection to the project is the lack of having a conservation easement granted for Mr. Widdis' unplatted 38 acres bordering the backside of the Petitioner's property. In a letter dated August 22, 1994, Mr. Duke Domke, Land & Water Management Division, informed Mr. Webber that:

An understanding had been reached between Mr. Gottschalk (MDNR) and Don Widdis regarding any further fill in these wetlands. Basically it was: no further fill would take place without proper permits, and no further permits would be issued without a conservation easement on the remaining adjacent wetlands owned by Mr. Widdis.

If and when such a conservation easement is obtained from Mr. Widdis, permits for fill will again be considered. Your application could be evaluated at that time.

[Exhibit P-9]

Mr. Gottschalk testified he had an agreement with Mr. Widdis for the granting of a conservation easement on the 38 acres, but Mr. Widdis "backed out" of the agreement. Exhibit R-3. Further, testimony was that part of the agreement with the developer was no further filling would be permitted in the platted subdivision until the conservation easement was signed by Mr. Widdis. Exhibits R-4 and P-9.

The issue is whether or not the Department may deny an applicant a permit for fill based upon another person's verbal commitment and alleged illegal fill activity. Section 30306(1) of the Act, MCL 324.30306(1), provides in part:

Except as provided in section 30307(4), to obtain a permit for a use or development listed in section 30304, the person desiring the permit shall file an application with the department . . .. [Emphasis added].

This Subsection requires a person who wishes to place fill in a wetland to file an application with the Department. Mr. Webber is a person under the Act, and therefore, is entitled to apply for a permit under the Act. Section 30311 contains the criteria the Department must consider in making a decision regarding a person's application for permit. This Section does not, nor does any other section of the Act, provide for or allow the Department to decide on an application based upon another person's prior actions or commitments.

Mr. Webber contends expecting him to control the actions of another owner regarding the granting of a conservation easement for some 38 acres, before the Department will consider reassessing his separately platted Lot for fill, is holding him and his project "ransom". Mr. Webber testified he bought the parcel of property that has the most high ground, approximately 50 feet deep from Seneca Trail to the proposed fill area, [Exhibit P-4] to make it feasible for him to do the least amount of filling and enable him to leave an extensive part of the back portion of his Lot in "its natural state".

From a review of Exhibits P-1, P-3, P-4, P-5 and P-6, these lots were platted as separate parcels. Mr. Webber testified he was not aware of any previous denial of a permit, nor any violation of the Act and any conditions which would prevent him from applying for and receiving a permit to develop Lot 12. He testified he was aware at the time of purchase a fill permit would be required for Lot 12, pursuant to Part 303 of the Act.

Real estate is a form of property upon which a unique set of legal principles have developed over hundreds of years. One of these legal principles is "notice". Persons purchasing real estate generally rely on county real estate records to determine the marketability of, or restrictions on, the land. County real estate records are readily accessible to a prospective purchaser. Defects in title or restrictions on the land not found in the real estate records usually do not bind a purchaser. Also, binding on purchasers are county, township and city ordinances and State statutes, like Part 303 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, as amended, which may restrict development of a particular parcel. Purchasers are deemed to have "constructive notice" of State statutes, as well as local laws which may effect the land. The Petitioner testified he was aware a Department permit for fill would be required for Lot 12 before he purchased it and knew there may be a local zoning ordinance requiring a building set-back from the road's edge.

Real estate purchasers in Michigan have always relied upon, and have a right to rely upon, some type of "record notice" as to the conditions and restrictions which may apply to a specific piece of land. The Petitioner testified their is nothing in the county real estate records, indicating the Department had determined Lot 12 could not be filled without Mr. Widdis entering into a conservation easement on the adjoining property.

Because property can be sold, resold and transferred in many different ways, holding the Lot owner to the commitment of another holds subsequent purchasers or transferee responsible for acts of prior owners and developers. The implementation of this policy, that of holding a person responsible for the acts of another, has no foundation in the Act and is patently unfair because the purchaser or transferee has no record notice of the Department's decision. The consequence of this policy is that a different standard of review is applied in deciding on the application for permit of a subsequent purchaser or transferee.

Although persons should not be able to fill in more wetlands by subdividing real property, there is nothing in Part 303 of the NREPA to prevent the subdivision of wetlands. If the sought-after result is prevention of cumulative impacts, then the Department has unilaterally elevated this criteria beyond the level of consideration the Statute assigns to it. Unrestrained filling must be balanced against the rights of purchasers or transferee of real property who expect permit decisions to be made on the merits of their application. Mr. Webber is entitled to have his Application considered on its own merits using the criteria in Section 30311 of the Part 303 of the NREPA.

In summary, if restrictions are to be placed on real property there must be record notice of those restrictions or they will not bind subsequent purchasers. Purchasers are presumed to have notice of the Act, but are not presumed to have notice of what a neighbor, or developer, allegedly did. If the latter presumption were true, a different standard of review, which is not founded in the Part 303, is created for the subsequent purchaser or transferee.

I find, as a Matter of Fact, the Petitioner's existing house on Lot #13 is not a feasible and prudent alternative to the proposed project.

I find, as a Matter of Fact, the Widdis 38 acres, and whether or not it has been subject to a conservation easement with the Department, is irrelevant to the Petitioner's application.

1. I conclude, as a Matter of Law, the subject property is a wetland which is contiguous to Houghton Lake. Thus, it is a regulated wetland and a permit is required for the proposed activity, pursuant to Section 30304.

2. I conclude, as a Matter of Law, a person's application must be reviewed by the Department and a decision made based upon the criteria enumerated in Section 30311 of the Act.

3. I conclude, as a Matter of Law, the proposed activity is wetland dependant.

4. I conclude the proposed activity is otherwise lawful.

5. Based on the Findings of Fact, I conclude, as a Matter of Law, the proposed project, to fill an area measuring approximately 76 feet deep x 85 feet wide, will not cause an unacceptable disruption to the aquatic resources associated with Houghton Lake.

6. Based on the Findings of Fact, I conclude, as a Matter of Law, there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the proposed project.

7. Based on the Findings of Fact, and having balanced the reasonably foreseeable benefits and detriments of the proposed activity, I conclude, as a Matter of Law, the project is in the public interest.

8. I conclude, as a Matter of Law, the Department does not have the authority to deny the Petitioner's Application based upon its the condition that Mr. Widdis execute a conservation easement.

Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is DETERMINED the Petitioner's Application, pursuant to Part 303, Wetland Protection, of 1994 PA 451, as amended, can be approved.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, the Petitioner's application for permit, to place between 400 and 475 cubic yards of fill in an area measuring 76' long x 85' wide x 2-3' deep is APPROVED.

Dated: August 27, 1996 ________________________________

Richard G. Lacasse, Acting Chief
Administrative Law Judge

P-1 Copy from Denton Township Tax Roll Books for plat of Seneca Village #2, Section 9, Denton Township, Roscommon County; Re: Lot #12 owned by Charles C. Webber Undated.
P-2 Correspondence, with attached Application For Permit, from Charles C. Webber to Fred Gotshalk, Mio District Manager, with aspects of proposed project. Dated May 17, 1994.
P-3 Correspondence, with attached Application For Permit, from Charles C. Webber to Sally Stoll, District Office, Mio, from Charles C. Webber, with attachment of detailed drawings of the proposed project. Dated June 30, 1994.
P-4 Copy of Mortgage Report, done by North Central Survey Co., for Section 9, Lot 13. Dated February 8, 1990.
P-5 Copy of Surveyor's Certificate for Seneca Village No. 2, Denton Township, Roscommon County, Michigan Dated April 18, 1989.
P-6 Copy of plat showing Lots 10-16 and Seneca Trail. Handwritten note of Lot ownership provided.
P-7 "Public Notice" filed by the State of Michigan, Department of Natural Resources, regarding a proposed project to "place approximately 475 cubic yards of fill material in a 76 by 85 foot wetland area to raise the elevation of an existing lot . . .." Dated July 20, 1994.
P-8 Correspondence, certified mail, denial letter for proposed project, re: DNR File #94-07-214, Charles Webber. Dated August 22, 1994.
P-9 Correspondence, Re: from Duke Domke, Land and Water Management Division, Mio District Office to Charles Webber detailing no further fill in subdivision without a conservation easement from developer, D. Widdis. Dated August 22, 1994.
P-15 Copy of Petitioner, Webber's proposed house plans. Dated January 15, 1996.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

R-1 Correspondence, with attached Application For Permit, from Charles C. Webber to Fred Gotshalk, Mio District Manager, with aspects of proposed project. Dated May 17, 1994.
R-2 "Public Notice" filed by the State of Michigan, Department of Natural Resources, regarding a proposed project to "place approximately 475 cubic yards of fill material in a 76 by 85 foot wetland area to raise the elevation of an existing lot . . .." Dated July 20, 1994. Submitted with attached copy of Application For Permit (May 20, 1994). Dated July 20, 1994.
R-3 "Project Review Report" copy for Application for Permit, File #94-7-214W, completed by MDNR August 5, 1994, regarding wetland fill Application filed by Charles Webber. Dated August 5, 1994.
R-4 Correspondence, certified mail, denial letter for proposed project, re: DNR File #94-7-214, Charles C. Webber. Attachment, correspondence of same date reiterating agreement for conservation agreement with developer, D. Widdis. Dated August 22, 1994.

JOINT EXHIBITS

J1-J9 Photographs of Lots 12 and 13, owned by Petitioner Webber, showing how current home site on Lot 13 is developed, leaving the backyard primarily wetland. Photographs of Lot 12 shown in its current wetland state.