My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-27-1989 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
1980-1989 Microfilm
>
1989
>
03-27-1989 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/28/2025 12:16:27 PM
Creation date
3/28/2025 12:14:57 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
222
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
operation. We use 400 yards of soil an'"* plus 50 yards <br />of Canadian peat for our growing each It is <br />essential we have soil for our growing. The physical <br />properties of this peat is vastly superior to peat from <br />marshes from Wayzata east to around the Twin Cities. <br />The wetlands located in Lot No. 1 was not wet lands <br />until I had constructed it in 1953. A careful study of the <br />terrain will show it has hardly any natural runoff. It was <br />built for irrigation purposes. It provides storage for <br />runoff from Hardcover area of greenhouses and ground <br />water. This is recycled back onto the growing crops. We <br />use 100/000 to 400/000 gallons of water a year from this <br />source. We have at this time only 2 choices to grow the <br />crops. Use this water or pump water from the aquifer in <br />*'r area. In the sense of conservation, it is ir^- feeling <br />that the use of grade 2 water is to be preferred over grade <br />1 water. This has been an existing use prior to enactment <br />of ordinances referring to wetlands. We are a <br />nonconforming farm use with all the rights and privileges <br />that are available in that area. I believe this falls into <br />the accessory use within the scope of the zoning <br />requirements. <br />il2 - Page 3 of 6 <br />The requirement for 100 ft. setback from the Luce Line <br />appears to be more restrictive than the ordinance. The 100 <br />ft. front set back 50 ft. east and west setback is well
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.