Laserfiche WebLink
�pril 1? , 1°77 <br /> � - � Grono City Council <br /> ' Faae 2 <br /> � CO:+C=R� I I I : "rppl i cati on i ndi ca�es mai n�er�ar-�ce dredgi ng to ori gi ral 1 ake bottom. - <br /> � Larking �ata certifying original boi.tom. " <br /> � The bot�om near the shoreline has been ever changing due to run-off and <br /> erosion. The original bottom can only be theorized using available data <br /> � such as the following quote `rom the soil boring analysis su5mit�ed: <br /> � "ooring ST-1 encountered topsoil overlying alternating layers <br /> of sand, loamy sand, and sandy loam to the 7 foot depth, fine to <br /> � n�edium sand i,o sandy loam to the 10 foot depth, silty clay to clay <br /> �o �he 23 foot depth, . . . ". 5oring ST-2 uas much the sai��e. The same <br /> � report stateslater: " . . . it was determined based on �he p2netration <br /> resistances and the visual observa�ions of the soil sar�ples , that <br /> � - little to no pile capacity would be developed above 17 feet in the <br /> � case of boring S7-1 and 13 feet in ST-2. " . <br />, . These bori ngs are w i i,hi n ���ael ve feet of the na�ural shorel i ne <br /> • . <br /> Consider that when we purchased �he prop�r�y in 1963 tne shoreline raised <br /> � gradually to a hill about 20 feet i��igh a� the present location of our shop <br /> and showroom buildings. Over the years it is quite certain �hat much of <br /> � this hill was closer to �he shore and had been erooed into the lake. It is <br /> • even concievable that the "original " boi.tom was as much as 17 feet below <br /> the present bo��om level . This helps explain �he difficulty in deter���ining <br /> � " a "certified original� bottom" , b:e do know that the silt in the area i�;r�ere <br /> ���e propose �o work is one to �wo feet deeper than it was when we built our <br /> � docks in 1964. <br /> .� CQ'vC��N _IV: "If a riparian property ot�rner is deprived of access to the lake as a <br /> � result of an accumulation of erosion, maintenance dredg�ng ti•�ould be <br /> necessary. In your case, r�o���ever, drzdging would not be necessary <br /> � to provide access to the lake. Current conditions do not prevent <br /> access to the lake from your property." <br /> • � <br /> The first paragraph of our le�ter accompanying our application states quite <br /> • clearly how access is deprived-to 30ro of existing-slips . A clear hardship <br /> • is sP�own by the same facts. The concern itself states that maintenance <br /> • _ dredging is necessary. " <br /> � � CONCERN U: "The planning corr�nission did indicate they i�ould have no objection to <br /> � � any acceptable plan for riprapping the shoreline for protection against <br /> any further erosion. " <br /> � <br /> • - This is exactly what we are app7ying for a permit to do. The only way the <br /> riprapping can be effected is in the manner applied for. <br /> � CONCEP.N VI : The planning corunission expressed that the permit could not be <br /> � considered until North Star t�arina is in compliance with current <br /> dock length regulations. � <br /> We consider our present dock configuration a constitutional right that should <br /> � be considered separate from this application. lde are discussing this <br /> di�ference o; opinion regarding this issue with the LMCC�on a freindly basis <br /> � and would appreciate having the same opportunity with Orono. • <br /> r . <br /> � <br /> � <br />