My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-03-1995 Park Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Park Commission
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
04-03-1995 Park Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/13/2020 4:02:41 PM
Creation date
1/13/2020 4:02:40 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING <br /> MINUTES FOR APRIL 3, 1995 <br /> (Discussion of Proposed Development near French Creek Preserve - <br /> Continued) <br /> spent public money to set aside the wetland area. She said that <br /> the City did not have many opportunities to do this . She felt this <br /> was a key issue for the Park Commission to deal with. <br /> Flint asked if some of the neighbors had any input to offer. <br /> Mike Ellis, of 1020 Old Crystal Bay Road South, stated Plan A <br /> made sense . I am concerned about maintaining things as much as <br /> possible as to the way they were, I realize they can' t stay that <br /> way, but one question is about paving the road. I was one of <br /> several who went back there and closed up the drain and built the <br /> pond up. I 'm familiar with it, if these trees are maintained the <br /> way they are now, I can' t believe it would make any difference with <br /> the pond. <br /> Melamed stated that there would be a corridor at its narrowest 90' <br /> between the pumping station and the west edge of the development . <br /> Wilson questioned, so your adding 50' . <br /> Melamed stated its 50 ' plus 40 ' that the City already owns . <br /> Flint said that if we go with Plan B, which is to take the land, <br /> the Planning Commission may require that you still provide a <br /> buffer. <br /> Mabusth, felt the Planning Commission would require building a <br /> barrier/buffer along the boundaries of the property. <br /> You can assume the other buffers are going to happen, stated <br /> Melamed. <br /> Flint indicated that it might be possible to provide a combination <br /> of all three - some land to be donated, some easement to buffer the <br /> property, and some money to be contributed. He asked what would be <br /> the maximum land if that were all . <br /> Melamed indicated that the calculations that Gronberg came up with <br /> are 1 . 23+ acres, which the Park Commission was entitled, 1 . 2 acres <br /> was dry and the other . 03 is wetland. This would provide a <br /> corridor 95 to 100' along the east side of the property. <br /> wilson stated that the Nature Conservation does a lot of <br /> conservation easements so she had talked to them. Nature <br /> Conservancy said the problem with the conservation easement is that <br /> they need a lot of monitoring, you need to have some one checking <br /> on them and make sure they are being followed and as a general <br /> practice that is a real hassal . Their advice was for the City to <br /> 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.