Laserfiche WebLink
. 1 <br /> � Cit� o� ORONO <br /> � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> � NO. �L� (� .. <br /> � <br /> • - • • <br /> 6) Application for a City permit was not made until May 14, <br /> 1981, 30 days after DNR application, and only 7 days <br /> before MCWD action. <br /> 7) The Welsh application was twi.ce reviewed by the Orono • <br /> Planning Commission (June 1, 1981, and again on August 17, <br /> 1981) . In both instances the Planning Commission voted <br /> unanimously to deny the application for reasons stated <br /> in their minutes, attached hereto and made a part of this � <br /> Resolution. <br /> 8) The current dredging proposal as indicated on plans <br /> received by the City on May 14 , 1982 (Exhibit A & B <br /> attached hereto) appears to be consistent with the • <br /> terms of the 1981 DNR permit and appears to be in the <br /> location of the apparent 1961 dredging. These plans <br /> do not conform to the size or location requirements of <br /> the 1961 DNR permit. The area of the proposed dredging <br /> � is all open water and is not in any marsh area. The <br /> � proposed depth may or. may not be to hard bottom. No <br /> borings have been provided. The proposed four ft. (4 ' ) <br /> �' depth is 7.ess than the specified denth . in thP "' • <br /> � ],961, DNR permit. � • <br /> 9) The revised plans submitted to the City on May 14, 1982, <br /> are drawn on .a survey dated January 4, ]:982, "revised � <br /> to show proposed dock, channel and rip rap as of March 9, � <br /> 1982" . These plans are consistent with the specifications <br /> of the 1981 DNR permit issued in August, 1981, but are <br /> not consistent with the "revised plans" submitted to and <br /> approved by the MCWD on July 16, 1981. Therefore the <br /> MCWD permit is out of date and is based on incomplete <br /> plans. <br /> 10) The MCWD and DNR permit approvals were made without benefit <br /> of imput from the City, not because. the City delayed <br /> response to those agencies, but because: <br /> a) The MCWD acted before the City was even aware <br /> of the proposal . <br /> b) The City was not officially notified by the <br /> MCWD or the DNR of their respective considera�ion <br /> of the Welsh applications . A copy of the DNR <br /> application was transmitted to the City not by <br /> � ' the DNR but by Welsh ' s attorney, and then only <br /> in the middle of June, 1981, two months after <br /> the date of the DNR application. <br /> 3 o f 1�,5' <br />