Laserfiche WebLink
� FW: Orono CPU - Comments Page 1 of 7 <br /> -�-�,�,� `'� j 7-���� J�"77.�,T7�% � ��.::�v-��- <br /> Mike Gaffron �\` a •"'� �;�'� {�,�-� • . - <br /> � ___._, <br /> _._.._ <br /> ,---,. <br /> From: Jim Murphy [jmurphy@goldengate.net] <br /> �� °�. Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 9:58 AM <br /> � To: Mike Gaffron <br /> Subject: Re: Orono CPU - Comments <br /> Mike; <br /> Word for word what I would say! YAK!! <br /> We'll save this & send it to Bob just before we meet with him. <br /> Jim <br /> ----- a essage ----- <br /> From: Mike Gaffron <br /> ��� To: Jim Murphy �jmurphy�a golden atq e.net) <br /> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 9:12 AM <br /> Subject: RE: Orono CPU - Comments <br /> Jim—here are my thoughts— <br /> 1. The Met Councii denial letter of July 10, 2008 made no connection between the Comp Plan update and <br /> the denial of the sewer connection. However, when Bill Welis and I met with Jim Uttley and Phyllis <br /> Hanson on October 14, they first suggested that I do a density calculation for just the existing lakeshore <br /> MUSA lots to see if that would yield a density of 3 units per acre to justify at least allowing sewering of <br /> lots that abut the lake. I suggested that would take some time to compile; they then suggested that we <br /> complete our work on the Comp.Plan before they would address this further. (I later did that analysis— <br /> even when discounting wetlands and the unbuildable 0-75' zones, we are nowhere near 3 units per acre <br /> — more like 1.1 units per acre). <br /> 2. It has been my contention all along that there is no logical connection between the two. In my opinion <br /> this is purely a situation in which Met Council staff have extended their authority far beyond the scope of <br /> the policies established by Met Council in its October 13, 2004 "Guidelines for Evaluating Amendments <br /> Proposing Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) Expansion" ("the Guidelines") nor by the September <br /> 12, 2007 revisions to the Guidelines ("the Revisions"). The reasoning behind my position is stated in my <br /> July 25, 2008 letter to Kyle Colvin. In their zeal to promote the Met Council's density policies, Uttley and <br /> Hanson have applied a policy that under MC guidelines shouid not be applicable to a mere connection <br /> request for a property already in the MUSA sine 1998 for which we are not requesting a comprehensive <br /> plan amendment, which is not an expansion of the MUSA, which is not a land use change, and is not a <br /> staging change. The remedy suggested by Uttley and Hanson was that we should provide for a density <br /> offset to result in an average of 3.0 units per acre (i.e. for this single 7.5 acre property to connect we <br /> should re-guide a 2.5 acre MUSA site elsewhere at a density of 12 units per acre). This may seem to be <br /> a relatively painless exercise for one parcel, but when extended to all our unsewered properties already <br /> in the MUSA since 1998-2000, it becomes absurd. From my perspective, this is purely a matter of <br /> honoring prior commitments, and should not be related to the Comp Ptan update. <br /> 3. Both properties (3125 Fox and 1135 Spring Hill) are lakeshore lots that have septic systems that are past <br /> the City's established deadline for being replaced due to lack of separation from the seasonal saturation <br /> zones. Both properties have alternate sites and septic system replacement is an option, but not the <br /> preferred option for takeshore properties. That is why we ptaced most of Orono's remaining lakeshore <br /> properties into the MUSA in 1998 and 2000—so they could connect to the sewer. <br /> - Mike <br /> 7/14/2009 <br />