My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-12-1997 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
1997-1999
>
1997
>
05-12-1997 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/31/2023 3:45:10 PM
Creation date
7/31/2023 3:40:36 PM
Metadata
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.
/
250
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
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MINUTES FOR APRIL 28,1997 <br />(#14 - Spring Hill Golf Club - Continued) <br />Crosby questioned if an inventory of the Big Woods gets them any further than the current <br />information they have. Johnson stated the County Biological Survey shows plant assemblage <br />which is not a comprehensive examination of plants and animals. Crosby agreed that plant and <br />animal studies could be done on an inventory but he did not want to see "tree counting". Johnson <br />added that the DNR is looking at the entire area, not just the Big Woods. <br />Jabbour asked why the State has not been more pro-active in acquiring this parcel if it is such an <br />important natural resource. <br />Chuck Plant, a business owner in Orono, commented that timing is causing high tension levels. <br />He would recommend that if Council is uncomfortable about making a decision at this time, they <br />should wait until next year. They would then be prepared to make the best decision for all of <br />Orono. <br />Kelley agreed with having an inventory but he questioned how much of that information was <br />needed before a decision about an EIS could be made. Goetten felt Council should have more <br />information. <br />Krueger commented that the DNR wants more information, and the City should consider their <br />advice. <br />Jabbour stated it was important to address the needs of the DNR in the best way while still <br />dealing with the applicants and concerns of others. He felt an additional 30 days was necessary. <br />Flint agreed, indicating it would be better to have an additional 30 days for study rather than to <br />recommend an EIS at this time. <br />Kelley asked if Council knew exactly what information is still to be collected. <br />Jabbour stated the City should work closely with the DNR to identify exactly what is needed in <br />the next 30 days. At that point, a decision could be made if the City has answered the concerns <br />of the DNR. The City is more interested in mitigating and preserv ing than inventorying and <br />cataloging. <br />Kelley asked if Council was satisfied that all the other agencies concerns have been answered. <br />Jabbour felt they had, other than the DNR.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.