My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-16-2020 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2020
>
03-16-2020 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/17/2020 2:20:04 PM
Creation date
3/17/2020 1:57:44 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
191
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Tuesday,February 18,2020 <br /> 6:00 p.m. <br /> materials, she suggested that she read aloud the letter expressing their concerns regarding the impacts of <br /> the potential change. She stated that this project deserves a lot of careful thought and noted that some of <br /> the agencies involved have shown a lack of coordination and have omitted some of the features that <br /> would be expected in a project of this magnitude. She asked that the Commission consider the vision, <br /> values and goals of Orono as they make their decision. She read aloud the letter sent to the Commission <br /> by the neighborhood. She noted that the neighborhood already has concerns about the use of the <br /> property,to date, including the addition of foot bridges in buffer areas without permission. She stated <br /> that she also does not think there is data that can show whether this plan is really viable and if the soils <br /> will percolate as expected. She stated that the surrounding neighbors feels as though there are too many <br /> questions that have not been thoroughly studied. She stated that they feel this project could set a <br /> precedent and is too important to rush through and are asking the Commission to consider the materials in <br /> the packet fully and completely. <br /> Ressler reminded the audience that public comments need to be limited to about a 5-minute maximum. <br /> Ressler stated that in the application there are a lot of comments and concerns that are very valid. He <br /> stated that he believes the footbridge has been addressed and noted that type of thing would be a concern <br /> for the City as well if it were to be added to the wetland. He stated that he disagrees with the implication <br /> that the DNR and the MCWD are not capable of adjudicating this application. He stated that the entire <br /> project is above and beyond the City's code and the City will lean heavily on the governing authorities to <br /> regulate this type of project. He recommends that the comments and concerns of Ms. Marks and the <br /> neighborhood be shared at the MCWD Board meeting on February 27,2020. <br /> Ms. Marks stated that she was not questioning the capability of the DNR but they are not a governing <br /> body and thinks generalized comments were taken as approval by the DNR. She stated that through Ben <br /> Carlson's comments,the Commission can see that the DNR is opposed to having been put into the role of <br /> seemingly giving their approval for this project. She stated that she is requesting that there be some <br /> science around the possible changing of this ecosystem. She stated that this is a cattail wetland and the <br /> neighborhood feels that there are already ample sources of other open water areas and asked the <br /> Commission to consider whether this is an appropriate use of the space. <br /> Ressler stated that this is a fluid project and at the end of the day, he believes it is the City's intent to <br /> follow the direction of the MCWD when their meeting occurs at the end of the month. He reiterated that <br /> he strongly recommends that Ms. Marks and other concerned neighbors attend that meeting and listen to <br /> people that can speak more intelligently about their concerns. <br /> Libby thanked Ms. Marks for her passion and concern about conservation and preservation. He stated <br /> that all the residents of Orono appreciate that and it is part of the mission statement for the City. He <br /> commended her for stepping up and speaking for something that she is so passionate about and noted that <br /> the Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council. He stated that he does disagree with <br /> some of Ms.Marks opinions,however, because for the last 30 years,he has had substantial opportunity to <br /> work with other governing bodies and has a great deal of trust in their wisdom,vision, and their empirical <br /> understanding of nature. He explained that the decisions are really outside the scope of the Commission's <br /> decision-making ability. <br /> Ms. Marks stated that this could have been a closed conversation with the MCWD if no public comment <br /> had been expressed. She stated that they feel that a number of the typical considerations have not been <br /> observed for this process,which she assumes is because it is a relatively rare circumstance. <br /> Page 11 of 30 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.