Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OP THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 20, 1985. PAGE I4 <br />#919 SCHULTZE <br />(CONT)Kelley asked staff for the definition of a wildlife pond <br />versus a decorative pond, ^ <br />Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth answered that the <br />applicant first advises whether the pond is to be a wildlife <br />or decorative pond. Mabusth stated that if a wildlife pond <br />IS to be installed, there is a more extended review process by <br />other agencies. Mabusth noted that the physical difference <br />between the two ponds is that the wildlife pond has more <br />gadual slopes with an island. Mabusth explained that the <br />decorative pond has sharper or steeper banks and usually no <br />islands to encourage wildlife. Mabusth advised that the <br />decorative pond is deeper and water quality controlled with <br />noted that the applicant can place swans <br />nest th^ order to discourage other wildlife that might <br />pond^"*^*^ Callahan asked Schultze if he plans to aerate the <br />Chairman Callahan closed the public hearing at 10:53 p.m. <br />Kelley moved, McDonald seconded, to recommend approval of <br />conditional use permit application of Ted <br />Schultze »ased on the following findings: <br />wetlands located within a designated <br />2. <br />Approval is subject to the following conditions: <br />Applicant must submit additional hydraulic information <br />such as the elevation of the pond and specific controls <br />on outlets and inlets, especially to the north if the <br />applicant considers this as a possible outlet. <br />2.Applicant to restore entire disturbed area with suitable <br />ground cover upon completion of land alteration. <br />Spoils stored on edge of pond to be used in restoration <br />Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0).