11-14-1978 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

� • -�- Page 12 protected. If this channel area is allowed to close by siltation, this lagoon would be lost to the Iake and become marshland. This would not only depri ve various fish species of a breeding area, but would also deny access to fishermen. There would be no adverse ecological impact on the lake if this area were dredged by the methods described. A recent study completed at the Freshwater Biologic Institute would support this. 4. Hardship to the land by denial of this dredging would be an ultimate Ioss of this area to Lake Minnetonka. In addition, loss of the boat lagoon to me would have a considerable in fluence on the value of my property, for which I feel I shovld be reimbursed if the covncil chooses to deny my application. - 5. Public interest to be served by this dredging would be the continued vse of this area by -fishermen, and avoidance of an unusually Iong dock extending into Lake Minnetonka. 6. Orono village ordnances do not specifically disallow dredging because other riparian access is present. In addition, prev�ous dredging permits issued by the City Council have NOT always been for maintenance of riparian rights. A permit issued on October 26, 1971, at 2660 Casco Point Road allowed channel dredging through shallow lake bottom, so that a more convenient, permanent dock could be placed at the shore rather than use an unusvaZly long dock. In addition, on May 29, 1973, a dredging permit was issued by the City Covncil at 1298 Wildhurst Trail to dredge an inlet for boat dockage even though ample other shore existed in a very con venience .Iocation. The Orono City CounciZ allowed dredging of a 20 foot channel almost a qvarter of a mile in Iength throvgh marshland, Angust 12, 1968, at 360 North Arm Lane to produce Iake access where none had existed befare. 7. I do not feel that there has been a situation comparable to mine presented to the City Council where a dredging permit has been denied. I was unable to find, in the council minutes, any example of denial of maintenance dredging, and it would �seem that a denial would be an unprecented action. In summary, there is absolutely no ecological =or Zogical reason to disallow maintenance dredging in this area, and in fact, it would be beneficial to the Iake, In addition, there is no precedent for this denial and for these reasons the permit shovZd be granted. Very truly yours, �;�' /�z� ' • L DA VID J. LAP, M. D. DJD/m j c enc: