My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00140
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00140
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:45:35 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:32:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
5/7/1980
Description
Agenda and Minutes
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Meeting
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
233
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
<br />21 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br /> <br />way to solve that particular problem. IJe probably ought <br /> <br />to watch out for that in the future, though, and consider <br /> <br />acquiring the land'rather than getting into this kind of <br />difficulty at the last minute. <br /> <br /> <br />MR. FETCHER: lJi11 the public have access to it? <br /> <br /> <br />MR. McDONALD: As it stands now, yes. That was alway <br /> <br /> <br />originally intended and therefore certain amounts of <br />recreational benefits can appropriately be claimed as <br />part of economic feasibility. <br />I-Jhat we were -trying to avoid, John, was private <br /> <br />landowners who will hold the land around the reservoir <br /> <br />being able to subsequently subdivide into a recreational <br /> <br /> <br />resort, second home kind of thing and pick up an <br /> <br /> <br />anticipated increase in property value by virtue of the <br /> <br /> <br />State investment in the reservoir. <br /> <br />MR. JACKSON: One more thing on that then. I think <br /> <br /> <br />that's right. It's not that we're against private <br /> <br /> <br />development, but it's simply I don't think it ought to be <br /> <br /> <br />done with 3 percent, 40 year money. <br /> <br /> <br />And if you get a scenic easement, you're in good <br /> <br /> <br />shape but it should be one that you are happy with and <br /> <br /> <br />I would hope that you get that in concrete very early <br /> <br />so that there is no further work on this until you know <br /> <br />that they will accept that plan -- the landowners will <br />accept that plan. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.