My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes from 1992
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Dissolved Boards/Commissions/Committees
>
LRRWMO
>
Minutes
>
Minutes from 1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/21/2025 1:31:09 PM
Creation date
4/14/2010 10:08:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Document Title
Lower Rum River Water Management Organization
Document Date
12/17/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
138
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).
View images
View plain text
LRR? ^IMO Meeting Minutes <br />October 15, 1992 <br />Page 8 <br />Motion was made by Ottensman, seconded by Schultz, to PLACE <br />THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES IN THE STATE <br />REGISTER AS '_•_ODIFIED. A COPY OF THIS ADVERTISEMENT SHALL <br />ALSO BE SENT TO THOSE ENGINEERING FIRMS SUGGESTED BY THE DNR <br />AND LISTED IN '_`?T_KKONVIT'S SEPTEMBER 23, 1992, MEMORANDUM TO <br />THE BOARD. <br />4 ayes - 0 nayes. Motion carried. <br />PENDING PROJECTS /PERMIT REVIEWS (Continued) <br />The board discussed DNR permit application 493 -6058, <br />Rivenwick Development Corporation. The LRRTAMO Consulting <br />Engineer's recommendations, dated October 8, 1992, indicated: <br />"The project appears to meet the water quality requirements <br />of the LRRWMO with the following exception. The inlet and <br />outlet for the sedimentation pond should be placed as far <br />apart as possible to prevent the shortcircuiting of flows in <br />the pond. ". <br />Schrantz noted this project will affect a Class A water. <br />Ottensman concurred with Skallman's finding, indicating that <br />as proposed it will not be a very effective sedimentation <br />pond. <br />Schultz queried where this project has applied for an LRRWMO <br />permit. Jarkeo7ski confirmed that it has not. Schultz stated <br />there should be an LRRWMO application obtained for this <br />project with the $500 review fee submitted. <br />Jankowski also agreed with Skallman's recommendation that as <br />far as sediment goes, they have to locate the discharge away <br />from the inlet. Ottensman concurred - indicating the discharge <br />area should be relocated; they should not have the inlet and <br />discharge near the same 'location. <br />Jankowski stated the developer is laying the sewer and water <br />lines now. He agreed with the other board members' position <br />that this project, which will affect a Class A water, should <br />have an LRRWMO permit. <br />Potion was made by Ottensman, seconded by Schultz, to APPROVE <br />DNR PERMIT #93 -6058 FOR RIVE1 DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ON <br />THE CONDITION THAT TEE LOCATION OF THE DISCHARGE BE MOVED <br />SUCH THAT THE INLET IS AS FAR AS POSSIBLE FROM THE OUTLET. <br />4 ayes - 0 nayes. Motion carried. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.