Laserfiche WebLink
0 <br />MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCH, <br />MEETING HELD ON MAY 279 1997 <br />(#6 - #2209 Spring Hill Golf Club - Continued) <br />Flint noted that the concept was to maintain animal movement. Jabbour suggested <br />adding "to maintain habitat ". Crosby suggested the wording be placed under the trail <br />section and adding another under accessory structure and under a general category. <br />Moorse suggested the plans be referenced and show specifically where low opaque and <br />opaque fencing will be located. Crosby indicated that the trail plans have not yet been <br />developed. Jabbour agreed but noted that the reasons why fencing is or is not needed <br />should be stated. <br />Gaffron recommended adding Div stating "types of fencing which would restrict wildlife <br />movement are not approved and require amendment to the conditional use permit ". <br />Crosby asked that the safety and separation issues be included to show legislative history. <br />Kelley asked that "generally" be eliminated. Moorse said the language should include <br />"subject to City approval ". Crosby agreed. <br />Kelley noted that there may be a future problem with cars driving onto the course. <br />Hunter said the Council could be approached if this occurred. Jabbour informed the <br />applicant that the Council is strongly against fencing the course. <br />Page 13, 9Bii, changed to "golf club related activities ". <br />Crosby asked that a 9Biii be added stating, "other recreational activities limited to <br />members ". <br />Under Cv, Crosby suggested adding, "and not reasonably listed under golf course <br />operation use ". <br />Jabbour questioned who would define what is reasonable and what are related items. <br />Concern was expressed over the use of "etc" under Civ. The City would like to see <br />protection written in prohibiting use for large presentations. Jabbour indicated that the <br />by -laws can be filed on record to use as a benchmark. Gaffron said a copy of the by -laws <br />would then be required. Crosby asked to eliminate the "etc" and add "involving primarily <br />members and their guests ". Jabbour asked that "primarily" be eliminated. <br />Barrett asked if the Council's intention is to allow wedding receptions. Kelley said it was. <br />Jabbour said, while the kitchen is limited in its use, food could be brought to the <br />premises, and intensity of use should be considered. Kelley noted that the building itself <br />will inhibit the use. <br />Crosby indicated Civ could remain with "etc" eliminated and as noted above. <br />9 <br />