My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-20-1997 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1997
>
10-20-1997 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/6/2023 11:27:33 AM
Creation date
9/6/2023 10:25:43 AM
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.
/
452
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
MINirfES OF THE REGULAR ORONO PARK COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 6, 1997 <br />Gappa suggested the area be protected. WUson thought it would be appealing if only the <br />road was vacated. <br />% <br />Waters reported the CouncU had considered a possible trade of land with the owner of Lot <br />3. <br />Gappa said the subdivision would extend to the cul-de-sac. which would be constructed <br />by the developer, but the developer of Lot 3 would have to extend the road to serve that <br />property. Waters indicated that this would be an expensive endeavor. Gappa said it <br />would only involve a driveway rather than a road. <br />Waters informed the Park Commissioners that a developers agreement would specify the <br />terms of the easement. Gappa added that it would be a drainage easement and Umitations <br />would be stipulated. Waters said it would also be delineated as a wetland. He showed the <br />extent of the wetlands to Welles noting the easement extends beyond the wetland. <br />Welles indicated he would be inclined not to take land at that location. Waters responded <br />that he thought it would make sense to take that land as it would be the only opportunity <br />to do so. <br />Wilson inquired about the development of Lots 4. 5, and 6. Waters said he is currently <br />reviewing the plans for that and additional property for development. Gappa reported that <br />they were separate applications, and this particular subdivision was not at the point of <br />review by the Cominission.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.