Laserfiche WebLink
L� <br />MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />WORK SESSION HELD ON DECEMBER 15, 1997 <br />Smith referenced the Dickey, Spring Hill, and Coffman developments. She asked for an <br />understanding on how these developments would have been impacted by the ordinance <br />and policy. Gaffron used Spring Hill Golf Course as an example, specifically the Big <br />Woods. With the ordinance, an inventory would have occurred and the developer would <br />have had to show what was being preserved and what was being planted. The property <br />could still be developed but would have required the extensive inventory. Gaffron noted <br />that the end result may not have been any different. <br />Lindquist noted the satisfactory outcome of the Melamed Subdivision regarding tree <br />preservation. Schroeder indicated the ordinance would have prevented any clear cutting <br />which could have been done. <br />Gaffron said the ordinance and policy would give the City a mechanism by which to <br />define a subdivision. Smith noted that today, clear cutting can occur. Gaffron agreed. <br />Gaffron added that the policy encourages homeowners to do what is right regarding tree <br />preservation. McMillan noted that it is important to note that the buffering was <br />maintained on the Melamed Subdivision. <br />Stoddard said some developers leave significant trees while clearing out the brush. He <br />would like to see developers encouraged to do similar projects to Sugar Woods by <br />developing guidelines to follow. This would put the work load on the developer and <br />builder rather than the City. Clear cutting guidelines could be offset with mitigation. <br />Lindquist asked if the goal should apply to preservation of existing wooded areas. <br />McMillan felt the goal was more for preservation of the rural character of the City. <br />