My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-20-1995 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1995
>
11-20-1995 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/5/2023 10:44:03 AM
Creation date
10/5/2023 8:44:35 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.
/
433
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
Zoning File #2086 <br />November 15, 1995 <br />Page 4 <br />Review Exhibit H, this specific wetland encroaches seven properties. If other property owners <br />seek to dredge open water area within this same wetland system, we would expect each owner <br />to mitigate equal areas of Type 2 for the area of dugout. Any property owner seeking to make <br />similar alterations would have to have a minimum 2 acres of dry contiguous lands within their <br />lot. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />4. <br />Applicant has provided no information as to the method of excavating the pond. The <br />City will not approve the bulldozer approach but would require a scoop method <br />whereby only the area to be excavated is encroached upon. Topsoils, as the Engineer's <br />report requests, would be used to spread within the disturbed area to allow for the <br />return of the cattails. WTiat other issues should be addressed by applicant or applicant s <br />contractor with this land alteration? <br />Should the mitigation area be equal or greater to the open water area ... or should the <br />City require mitigation? <br />The City will recommend that the guidelines set out in the City Engineer's repx)rt and <br />the DNR handout be followed as closely as possible. Applicant's pended plan should <br />address the following guidelines, side slopes, irregular shoreline and location of <br />mitigation area. Applicant's surveyor to confirm that there is no impact on adjacent <br />properties with the expansion of the designated wetland at either the southeast or <br />southwest comers of property. <br />Has applicant convinced members of the need for the open water area within the <br />designated wetland (review E.xhibit D)7 Do members perceive of conflicts with future <br />requests for open water areas within this wetland? <br />5. Other issues raised by Planning Commission. <br />Any recommendation of approval must include the following conditions. <br />a. <br />b. <br />Prior to scheduling the application before the Council for final action, the City <br />must be in receipt of written comments from both the Corps of Engineers and <br />the Watershed District concerning this application. <br />Prior to scheduling the application before the City Council, applicant must <br />provide an amended plan following the guidelines set forth by City Engineer Md <br />DNR. The plan is to reflect mitigation area if recommended by the Planning <br />Commission.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.