Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING <br />HELD FEBRUARY 20,1997 <br />Jabbour exprest:c<i concern over reaction from the DNR regarding mitigation. He <br />questioned the lawj Orono has in place to enforce mitigation and did not want the DNR to <br />assume that Orono wuufd tale care of all mitigation. <br />Gaffron noted that Orono ^ urreri^ly does not have a tree preservation ordinance. If one is <br />adopted, it would not neceiji’irilv affect this project. He added that while Orono protects <br />certain wetlands, the Watershed Dvstnet also has authority over wethtnds and would have a <br />review process of their own. <br />It was noted that the EAW is a factual document. Flint commented that the developer would <br />be considering all possibilities during the 60 days allowed for review. Jabbour cautioned <br />against confusing the EAW and permitting processes. He added that conceptual approval <br />of the project does not mean that all variances requested would be granted. Flint added that <br />any change to the current plan will have an impact somewhere else. <br />Goetten expressed concern over the lack of verbiage in the document regarding the big <br />woods and felt accurate detail of what exists should be included in the EAW. <br />Tom Crosby, representing the applicant, noted the EAW has two functions: <br />1) to determine if an Environmental Impact Statement is needed, and <br />2) to determine whether the project can be modified. Modifications could be <br />included as permitting conditions. <br />Other organizations and private individuals could then come fonvard with ideas on how to <br />modify the impact, including the City of Orono. The applicants stated they had no problem <br />with any of the language in paragraph 1 of Moorse's memo. Although the wording may not <br />be exactly the same, the context would not change. Other agencies are obligated to respond <br />to the EAW, for some agencies it is mandatory. <br />Gaffron suggested mitigation not be included in the EAW but become part of the conditional <br />use permit/variance review process. <br />Braman noted that a response must be given to all comments received after publication of <br />the EAW. <br />Jabbour stated that the applicant should be aware that Council, Planning and Park <br />Commissions, as well as the community, will be looking for further mitigation of the big <br />woods. <br />Flint noted that the EAW already included comments that movement of animals through the <br />area would not be impeded. He felt it should also be part of the CUP.