My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-17-1978 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
1970-1979
>
1978
>
12-17-1978 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2023 12:52:12 PM
Creation date
2/9/2023 12:51:58 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Ifc- ■ <br />i|MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 1, 1981 Page 6 <br />Kelley asked how often it would have to be dredged? <br />Speeter replied approximately every 20 years and that he <br />should have dredged it 5 to 6 years ago. He also noted <br />that every summer he had to bring in black dirt to cover <br />the eroded grounds. <br />Hammerel noted for the record the November 3, 1980, <br />Planning Commission minutes which stated that in their <br />approval of the bridge that Speeter/Henninger were <br />proposing to construct that the City forewarned him of <br />the City's policy on dredging and told him that a dredging <br />permit would more than likely be denied. <br />Speeter noted that it was dredged before and that now <br />the lagoon was reverting back to its original state that <br />of a swamp. <br />Mabusth noted that the walkway access was recently <br />formalized at the Council meeting of November 23, 1981. <br />Speeter noted that his erosion problems and the erosion <br />from the lagoon area which was coming from the storm <br />sewer which contributed to the filling of the lagoon <br />area. <br />^Opheim stated that the City shouldn't tell him that <br />^he is going to have a swamp in his back yard. <br />McDonald stated that if it was maintenance dredging <br />then the City might approve it and that if he had <br />lost any riparian rights then the City would consider <br />it, but as it is she doesn't think any riparian <br />rights have been lost. <br />Goetten noted that he does have an opening to the <br />lake now. <br />Mabusth noted that the lagoon would never return to <br />its original state because of the land alterations that <br />opened the lagoon at the far end. <br />Goetten asked the applicant if he had filed an application <br />for a retaining wall? <br />Speeter stated negative and asked if the City was going <br />to penalize everyone else that built things? He noted <br />that it wasn't even in the 75' setback. <br />Hammerel then asked for an informal poll as to whether <br />the Planning Commission was in favor of the apclication <br />or not. <br />Callahan stated negative. <br />Goetten stated negative. <br />Hammerel stated negative. <br />McDonald stated negative. <br />(SPEETER CONT'. >* <br />... • ....•q <br />...f <br />' ;; ■
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.