Laserfiche WebLink
d <br /> . C�t� o� ORONO . ° <br /> • � <br /> � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL .. <br /> � NO. �l{ ( � <br /> • � • • <br /> . � <br /> 5) jrTelsh' s facts and actions have demonstrated the <br /> existe:�ce and useability of navigable wa�ers <br /> �battinq the T+��lsh pronerty without requiring <br /> dredging, a:�d even without a dock . <br /> 6) The minimal impa�t enviror.:�en4�1 solution to <br /> nroviding a na�-igable access �o the t�elsh property <br /> is a dock, either temporary or seasonal , instead <br /> of dredging. <br /> 7) Granting of a dredging permit �ti�ould be adverse to . <br /> the ecological 'e^vironment oi Lake Riinnetonka , and <br /> :•:ould adversely affect neighboring property owners <br /> . and the public in general . <br /> 8) Den?al of the dredging perr.lit would protect the <br /> ec�logical environr,:ent of Lake Minnetonka, would <br /> � �rotect the property and proper�y values of <br /> ' ' neighboring property owners, ar.d would protect the <br /> gen�ral public he�I�h, safety and welfare . <br /> 9) Denial of the dredging perm?t would not deny Welsh <br /> any riparia:� access rights , a:ould not deny TrJelsh <br /> any pratical navigatior.al access that has �xisted <br /> ana continues to e::ist , and would not deprive Welsh <br /> of the uses of his land or riparian lakeshore that <br /> he has used in the pas� and continu�s to use. ' <br /> IO) The grantinp of any of the permits or variances <br /> in this case would� set an adverse precedent <br /> because of the several other applications that <br /> � have been discussed with others or are � pending <br /> for similarly situated property owner to dred e <br /> ,, would also be requesting permission , g <br /> the wetlands in front of' their properties for <br /> . their own personal benefit. <br /> • . 14 of 15 <br /> . �a <br />