My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-18-1982 Planning Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1982
>
01-18-1982 Planning Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/15/2023 10:40:05 AM
Creation date
2/15/2023 10:39:46 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
-i • L ■ <br />P-MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 18, 1982 Page 7 <br />W <br />-H <br />Speeter stated that the lagoon area has filled xn from <br />the erosion problems of his lakeside banks. He felt <br />that the Hanson letter spoke mainly of the problems of <br />dredging wetland areas. <br />Planning Commission advised Speeter that his lagoon area <br />was originally a wetlands. <br />Mayor stated that his lagoon was always a wetland and has <br />been returning to a wetland for the past few years. <br />McDonald noted that if it was dredged it would disturb <br />the wetland vegetation. <br />iSv <br />•Rovegno stated that he thought a building and grading <br />permit was all that was needed for the retaining wall. <br />Mabusth noted that a conditional use permit application <br />was required by Ordinance. <br />McDonald read the zoning code section 31.700 dealing with <br />the requirements of the conditional use permit application <br />for the construction of a retaining wall. <br />Rovegno felt that the lakeshore banks erosion hadn’t been <br />solved by the ''flume" structure, because that seemed to <br />^ have.centered the erosion into the middle of the lagoon. <br />Habusth stated that the retaining wall could have channeled <br />the drainage away from the lagoon banks. <br />Speeter gave the following reasons for requesting dredging <br />in his lagoon area: <br />1 - Navigation - He stated that it was dredged in 1967, <br />r When he bought his property he could have bought <br />three other lots but chose this one because of the <br />navigational rights. He noted that this was a <br />very long walk from his residence to the long dock. <br />2 - He felt this was maintenance dredging because of the <br />DNR permit in 1967. If he didn’t dredge the <br />lagoon area it would become very swampy aesthetically. <br />Mabusth noted that the MCWD would not act on the dredging <br />application unless sedimentation or erosion problems were <br />solved first. <br />Rovegno questioned the changes in the lagoon area created <br />by erosion. He wanted to know where the actual dredging <br />would be done. <br />% <br />Mabusth asked for verification of the area to be dredged as <br />the permit suggests dredging in the Henninger portions of the <br />lagoon. <br />(SPEETER CONT..) <br />• i • . . .• <br />1 <br />''B <br />liii <br />Jkrn <br />'• • jf- : .'i,Jf <br />■' <br />; 4 <br />4 i
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.