My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-12-1996 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
1996
>
08-12-1996 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/28/2012 4:17:40 PM
Creation date
12/28/2012 4:17:40 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 12, 1996 <br />( #12 - Dickey Property Internal Trails - Continued) <br />Putnam responded that he was now two owners removed, and the City needs to consult • <br />with those living there. Callahan and Jabbour disagreed. Jabbour alluded to the minutes <br />where it specifically stated that the trails were to be built. Putnam said the resolution <br />made mention of the barn. Jabbour said there were separate internal trails which were <br />public, not private, and the minutes state that Putnam would build and pay for these <br />trails. Putnam questioned why it was not in the resolution. He asked how it could be <br />done without knowing what kind of trail. He added that he had never seen the minutes <br />but had four resolutions and wants to do what is in the resolutions, which Putnam said <br />was to develop a grading plan. <br />When asked by Callahan, Putnam said it was his view that he has done what he was <br />suppose to do. Callahan said it was his view, as well as that of the Staff, that Putnam <br />was responsible for the cost of the internal trails. <br />Callahan asked Flint to comment. Flint said, as the development occurred, he was aware <br />of the trail not being constructed. He said the Park Commission tried to find out about <br />the trails and scheduled the item on their agenda at several meetings asking the developer <br />to attend. Flint noted that Putnam did not attend these meetings. Mabusth said the <br />developer was asked to attend. Putnam said he received a copy from the Staff of the <br />agenda of the Park Commission meeting but there was nothing saying he had to come. <br />Callahan commented that Putnam had responsibility at some point. Flint said the • <br />Commission then considered the trails and made a recommendation. Flint said the <br />problem was the new homeowners were moving in and it became difficult to distinguish <br />where the trails were located. Flint said the trail was to be public which would require <br />the maintenance by the City. A bituminous trail was considered as it would be less <br />maintenance but more of an impact. It was then concluded that the trail would be <br />marked with low monuments with a grass surface. This would allow access to the park <br />from the east and west for those in the development as well as a connection between East <br />and West Countryside. There would be low maintenance but the trails would be <br />distinguishable. Flint said there was difference of opinions on the trail surface but all <br />agreed that the trail be considered as a minor trail. Flint said the intent of the Park <br />Commission was to discuss these internal trails with the developer. <br />Greg Vitas, owner of lot 1, said he had no conception when he bought the property of <br />any internal trails. He views the area as a private and residential. Vitas said there were <br />trails all around this area with the Luce Line and the trail along Old Crystal Bay Road. <br />He sees no reason to make more trails and asked why now a private park. <br />Jabbour responded that the private park was there before Vitas was ever there. Jabbour <br />reviewed some of the history of the subdivision noting the major concessions made with <br />the City. He said originally the subdivision was to have been 2 less lots. Jabbour said the <br />residents of the neighborhood should be unhappy with what was portrayed by those <br />representing the subdivision. • <br />r_ 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.