COM 0829.001 2020-2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

FUKE: It will be done, yes. VITOUSEK: Yeah. The other question I have is, so the, substantively, the restrictive covenants create 80 percent of the lot to be retained in forest,but it doesn't provide a clear link in my opinion to Condition G and the forest management plan that would be proposed for the lots within the subject property; I would think that the lands that are bound by the restrictive covenant to preserve 80 percent of forest would be the lands that are following the forest management plan. Is that correct? Is it? CAMERO: Yes, I believe so, Chair Vitousek. VITOUSEK: Okay, so, perhaps indicating either in Condition G or D and F that the forest management plan applies to the lands that are included in the restrictive covenant? Would be a good thing? What do you think to that, Applicant? FUKE: I think it's already covered by Subsection 2,because the forest management program which, you know, talks about this management plan, you know, which is the forest management plan is part and parcel of the forest management program, so, and that has to be recorded with the Bureau of Conveyances, so I think it's consistent. I don't really feel like there is a need for any further amendments to that condition. VITOUSEK: I mean, for me I just, you know, we see that the forest management plan needs to be recorded and we see that this thing needs to be recorded,but to me I don't see the clear link between the two of them that this forest management plan is covering that 80 percent of the property. KERN: Mr. Chair, are you proposing something then stating that the forest management plan covers the 80 percent of the remaining something— VITOUSEK: Yes— KERN: —simple like where it's a little bit more pointed and not— VITOUSEK: Yes— KERN: I feel it's very much implied, but if you are concerned about that, I wouldn't have, I don't think any of us would have an issue with adding something to that effect. VITOUSEK: Yeah, I think— FUKE: Yeah, I don't think the applicant would have any objections to that, because that's kind of like our understanding anyway, so VITOUSEK: Yeah— FUKE: —if you want it to be explicit, then it's fine. 14 EXHIBIT C (DRAFT)