05-27-1997 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MAY 27,1997 0 (#6 - #2209 Spring Hill Golf Club - Continued) Page 8, #2, under Legal Combination. Prior to issuance to building permits was changed to "Prior to 1/1/98 ". Flint questioned how the selling of the portion of wetlands south of Spring Hill Road would be affected by the legal combination. Crosby indicated that this particular property is a separate tax parcel. Flint noted that this wetland is used to clean water from the golf course and recommends that it be left unobstructed to ensure water quality. Crosby indicated that regardless of ownership, the wetland is protected as far as its function. He suggested a conservation easement be placed on the wetland in the future. Gaffron did not feel this property had to be legally combined with the golf club but did believe a conservation easement should be required before the property leaves the ownership of the golf club. The easement issue was discussed. Morrison suggested the wetland be City owned or an easement placed on it. Goetten asked why there was a change. She was informed that a neighbor has asked to purchase the property south of Spring Hill Road. Morrison said the neighbor would want to- control the dry portion of the property. Crosby indicated that it would be more beneficial for the new owner to provide the easement. Council agreed to the wording for this particular parcel that "if conveyed, it is subject to standards of Orono wetlands easement ". Gaffon will amend the resolution language • regarding the legal combination of all parcels, an indication that this parcel is not included but requires granting of a conservation easement. 0 Page 8, 3Aiii - Also includes "rest station ". Crosby asked that "to greatest extent possible" be added to both sentences under 4B on page 9 noting the intention is to contain the runoff and grading. Kelley questioned who would make the judgment of what is considered practical. Gaffron said if a spill occurs, it would be difficult to enforce. Crosby said his concern was directed at maintenance of the golf course versus accidents, as all of the runoff from the course will not drain into the N(IRP pond as indicated by the statement. Gaffron supported this change. Flint did not. Tom Barrett noted that the issue is not defined as to enforcement. He questioned what would trigger the violation and what the remedy would be if such an event happened. The CUP process would be a remedy but felt the change to the language as suggested by Crosby would lay grounds for dispute. He feels the language as originally drafted is enforceable. Jabbour said he would defer to the City Attorney's recommendation. 7