My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-13-1992 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
01-13-1992 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/29/2019 1:09:07 PM
Creation date
4/29/2019 1:09:07 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING <br />HELD JANUARY 13, 1992 <br />DNR'S PROPOSAL FOR PUBLIC ACCESS ON MAXWELL BAY - CONT. <br />Kimball noted the DNR would like to present this proposal at the <br />meeting January 21st, and would like to have a response from the <br />Council by then. <br />Kimball introduced Dennis Assussen, Director of Trails and <br />Waterways Unit; and Martha Reger, West Area Supervisor of Trails <br />and Waterways. <br />Jim Grathwold, Director of the LMCD for Ex6e1sior, noted the LMCD <br />is responding as quickly as they can on this issue. He noted a <br />committee met last Saturday to discuss the current proposal. The <br />committee favored participation in the plan. <br />Jabbour advised that he is owner of Tonka Bay Marina. Although <br />there are two marinas that the LMCD /DNR are proposing to acquire, <br />according to State Statutes provided by the City Attorney there <br />is no conflict of interest; but that to avoid any possible <br />accusation of conflict of interest, he would, step aside during <br />E discussion of the sale of the marinas. He thanked the DNR for <br />their reaction to issues raised regarding the proposed access. <br />j He stated he would like Orono to proceed in a pro- active position <br />I rather than reactive position. <br />Callahan noted he in general agreed with Jabbour and noted that <br />Items 2 and 3 addressed what the first proposal overlooked. He <br />asked about the possibility of., extending the purchase option <br />until the feasibility study has been completed. <br />Kimball noted that would have to be agreed upon by the seller. <br />He stated the evaluation shows it would be .a good public access. <br />Callahan suggested that by dealing with Items 2 and 3 first and <br />developing an overall plan, they may find the need to only <br />acquire property extending from the corner of County Road 51 and, <br />Tonkawa Road only partially to the parcel in question. <br />Kimball indicated that a bigger area of land would provide for <br />greater compatibility with the land use of the area. <br />i <br />11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.