My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-12-1996 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1996
>
11-12-1996 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2023 1:46:53 PM
Creation date
9/5/2023 1:44:49 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
231
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 ORONO PL.'VNNING COXLMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 21, l‘)06 <br />(#9 - #2183 Charles Kramer - Continued) <br />Berg asked what the purpose was for the open water Kramer said it was his intent to <br />attract waterfowl McMillan reported that he needs to realize what surrounds the area, <br />i e , houses and dogs, and what privacy is there allowing ducks to be attracted to the area. <br />Kramer saM there are ducks and geese now He added that he moved to the property I- <br />1/2 years ago and intends to enhance what is there with the right input from experts <br />Schroeder asked if Smylhe has visited the property Mabusth said Snnihe visited the <br />property on this date and w as of the opinion that the ponding should be discouraged as the <br />area has not been degradated and is very unique He did not see any problem with the <br />pond in the northw est quadrant <br />Stoddard questioned if the open water area could be created in less than 100 cubic yards <br />of spoils removal Mabusth said a permit would not be issued as the City would restrict all <br />land alterations within this wetlands as a finding and condition of the current conditional <br />use permit <br />McMillan asked if there was any problem with a back yard wetland Mabusth said no. <br />Smith noted that the Commission has reviewed other ponds, questioned if there were <br />specific requirements, and how this pond compares to those mentioned Mabusth said the <br />ponds being referred to by Smith were protected wetlands and required a variance It is <br />not the case in this situation as this wetland is not a designated wetland Smith noted that <br />the CoBin property is unique and efforts were made by the City and developer to protect <br />it. Smith said she was not comfortable with the information on what the ponds will be <br />like <br />Hawn agreed vsith Smith She would like to see specific drawings on how it will look <br />over time She also questioned how the ponding could be created without destroying the <br />elm trees. Hawn would also like the updated plans to include what kinds of plantings will <br />be used and where they will be located Smith added that she would like to know the <br />elevations of the plantings Smith suggested a w etland specialist could provide that <br />information. <br />Kramer asked w hat the responsibility w as of the Corp of Engineers Mabusth informed <br />him that it is their responsibility to look over land alterations for unprotected wetlands. <br />She noted that the covenants obligate Kramer to have the Corp of Engineers review the <br />alteration as it w as classified during the subdivision Kramer said the Corp of Engineers <br />had no problem with the pond Mabusth said they would have no problem until it involves <br />filling Kramer said he understood that development destroys such land but it is his intent <br />to preserve it Mabusth informed him that the plan before us would destroy plantings. <br />She noted the need for more detail as there is concern when equipment is sent into this <br />wetland area.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.