My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-12-1997 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1997
>
09-12-1997 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/6/2023 9:46:09 AM
Creation date
9/6/2023 9:44:57 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
54
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO PARK COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON JULY 7, 1997 <br />(#6 - Tree Preservation - Continued) <br />Commissioners discussed whether points one and two were necessaiy. Beal noted #2*s <br />intent is to inform private land owners what can be done. Van Zomeren said the <br />distkiction is when an application is made to the City to divide land, which would initiate <br />the tree inventory and how trees are to be preserved. Wilson noted that this would not <br />affect a person wanting to remove a tree on their property. She feh the right of the private <br />property owner needs to be recognized. McDermott questioned if tree removal would be <br />allowed if it affected maintmning the ruralness of the property. He noted tree removal is <br />restricted in the shoreland district. Wilson noted that the purpose of the shoreland <br />ordinance b to orotect lakes from polludoiL Beal said the purpose of #2 is to show tl <br />government b not to be heavy handed regarding what private property owners can dc <br />with th^ property. <br />Use questioned whether the policy can protect the right of each property owner versus a <br />person subdividing thdr property. Beal indicated that it has been determined that the City <br />has the right to regulate subdivision. <br />Wilson indicated that she feels the buffer zone areas arc important. McDermott felt #2 <br />goes against buffering and questioned whether some restriction would be included for <br />private property owners. Wilson did not agree with McDermott but thought there would <br />be some restrictions. <br />Van Zomeren questioned the effect of deciding level of enforcement on subdivisions may <br />impact the ruralness of the property. She noted smaller properties may not have the same <br />impact. She indicated that the ability to inventory trees and regulate "v^at happens vnth <br />trees will not change. <br />Beal suggested #2 be dumnated and buffering cited ebewhere. <br />Wilson noted the purpose is to set guidelines. Gdppz noted that the guidelines would only <br />affect new construction or subdKision. Van Zomeren said tree loss can occur with the <br />installation of a new septic. <br />It was determined that #2 shewed the thought process the committee was taking. Beal <br />suggested starting with the guidelines for development. Wilson said addirional detril can <br />come later and present the general concept to the council with some direction. Van <br />Zomeren noted that the purpose is not to micromanage individual properties. <br />Beal questioned whether the Issue was people clear cutting trees. McDermott said he <br />would not be happy «f that occurred but people have that right. <br />. • •
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.