Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,March 21,2005 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#05-3098 City of Orono,Continued) <br /> 3. Establishment of a Restoration Agreement to be filed in the chain of title of the property,which <br /> contains provisions for financial security to ensure the plan is executed, and provisions for <br /> maintenance of new trees until they reach the size or diameter at which they are protected under <br /> City ordinances. <br /> Gaffron stated these elements are basically what the City has been following in the past and have merely <br /> been incorporated into the ordinance amendment. <br /> Rahn inquired what the City normally requires for financial security. <br /> Gaffron stated normally a letter of credit for 150 percent of the City's estimated value is required. <br /> Gaffron stated a letter of credit gives the City the ability to proceed forward with the work if the <br /> property owner neglects to complete it. <br /> Jurgens stated Section(a) is somewhat confusing in his view and may give the property owner the <br /> impression that he is allowed to do certain things without first obtaining a permit. Jurgens suggested the <br /> language be modified to include that as part of the permit this condition must be met. <br /> Gaffron stated language to that effect could be included. <br /> Jurgens indicated he also has a concern with the language in Section (b)that says"trimming of trees of <br /> any size". Jurgens stated that language could also give the property owner the impression that he is <br /> allowed to top the tree. <br /> Gaffron stated he would need to draft some language that would address that concern. <br /> Jurgens questioned whether the City would be able to obtain what existed previously on the property. <br /> Jurgens suggested the Planning Commission consider using a percentage rather than the language "up to <br /> three replacement trees"in Section(d) 1. <br /> Winkey stated the intent of the ordinance amendment is to create some type of deterrent to prevent the <br /> clearing of trees and shrubs along the lakeshore. Winkey inquired whether the City has considered <br /> imposing a fine in a situation like this. <br /> Gaffron indicated the City has considered imposing a fine in the past but that the minimal fine that a <br /> judge might impose is not a sufficient deterrent. <br /> Jurgens stated there might be an instance where the property owner cannot replace every tree that was <br /> removed and that perhaps some replacement trees could be planted on city property. Jurgens stated part <br /> of this amendment could include maintenance of the trees. <br /> Berg questioned whether the City wants to become involved in a private homeowner placing trees on <br /> City property. <br /> PAGE 15 <br />