Laserfiche WebLink
rainfall <br />and snowmelt. <br />Mr. Kovacevich <br />further <br />agreed at <br />that <br />time to <br />grade and <br />maintain the <br />drainage Swale <br />from the <br />culvert <br />to the <br />lake. <br />A) See copy of notes of Mr. Winslow's conversation with Mr. <br />Gustafson dated 8/24/87, attached as Exhibit B. <br />B) See copy of Orono memo from Jeanne Mabusth dated <br />October 13. 1987 referring to approval by both the Public <br />Works Department and the M.C.W.D. to raise the culvert <br />elevation to 930.0, attached as Exhibit C. <br />C) See copy of notes of Mr. Winslow's conversation of <br />11/23/87 with Mr. Gustafson confirming elevation of 930.0', <br />attached as Exhibit D. <br />The following table provides a use-:ul comparison of actual and proposed <br />culvert elevations. <br />With the confirmation from Mr. Gustafson on 11/23/87 (See Exhibit D) that <br />the West end of the culvert was 930.0', we proceeded with dredging, rip - <br />rapping and landscpping the pond. At no time did Kovacevich or his agents <br />state that the gas line inhibited placement of the culvert, either then or at <br />the 10/28/88 hearing before the M.C.W.D. Board. This was raised for the <br />first time in Jim Jensen's April 7, 1989 letter. All of the boulders, fill, <br />landscaping, tree, shrubs and flower plantings were executed using the <br />new culvert as a point of reference, in accordance with plans approved by <br />Orono (See photos attached as Exhibit E). <br />To change this now would require the expense of ripping out as well as <br />replacing completed work, would take many months, and would jeopardize <br />the existing large willows. It would be completely impractical to change it <br />now, and we would oppose doing so even if the expense thereof were to be <br />borne wholly by Messrs. Kovacevich and Gustafson. If the culvert is raised <br />per Mr. Kovacevich's proposal water will cover the boulder retaining wall, <br />cause erosion and may result in collapse of the road. (See photographs of <br />2 <br />4/7/89 <br />Original <br />8/24/87 <br />10/20/88 <br />Kovacevich <br />Elevation <br />Agreement <br />Actual <br />Proposal <br />Wes! end 928.6' <br />930.0' <br />929.3' <br />930.3' <br />East. end 928.0' <br />929.4' <br />929.3' <br />??? <br />With the confirmation from Mr. Gustafson on 11/23/87 (See Exhibit D) that <br />the West end of the culvert was 930.0', we proceeded with dredging, rip - <br />rapping and landscpping the pond. At no time did Kovacevich or his agents <br />state that the gas line inhibited placement of the culvert, either then or at <br />the 10/28/88 hearing before the M.C.W.D. Board. This was raised for the <br />first time in Jim Jensen's April 7, 1989 letter. All of the boulders, fill, <br />landscaping, tree, shrubs and flower plantings were executed using the <br />new culvert as a point of reference, in accordance with plans approved by <br />Orono (See photos attached as Exhibit E). <br />To change this now would require the expense of ripping out as well as <br />replacing completed work, would take many months, and would jeopardize <br />the existing large willows. It would be completely impractical to change it <br />now, and we would oppose doing so even if the expense thereof were to be <br />borne wholly by Messrs. Kovacevich and Gustafson. If the culvert is raised <br />per Mr. Kovacevich's proposal water will cover the boulder retaining wall, <br />cause erosion and may result in collapse of the road. (See photographs of <br />2 <br />