01-14-1991 Council Packet2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO COOWCIL MEETING HELD JANUARY 14, 1991 LHCD SHORELAMD REGULATIONS CONTINUED Callahan stated that is wis h'.s attend. b-3lief that she would Mr. Norm Piurus, who had at one time served as Chairman for the LMCD, stated that the DNR and LMCD have triad over the Last three years to get the communities to a^ree to a plan. he said, **The plan was a consensus. The iifficuLty is that the DNR, by- legislation, must impose their shoreline regulations. If the cities have no other proposals or alternatives, they will end up with the DNR regulations. The Metropolitan Council has given the authority to impose them, if the cities cannot reach another agreement. That is not a threat, that is a practical reality. The LMCD and DNR tried as best they could, but met with the same arguments regarding development versus conservation. I believe that the Orono Council is gong ro be compelled to make some tough choices.” Callahan staled that he strongly felt that the LMCD should not become involved in regulating the shoreline. He said, ''The aspect of becoming involved in shoreland management is ai extension of a very bad philosophy in the LMCD Plan. That seems to be the opinion of a majority of governing bodies and residents around the lakeshore." Jabbour added that because of other bodies of water within the City, that Orono must adopt the DNR Shoreland Management regulations anyway. He said, "It makes no sense for us to adopt the ONR's regulations and then duplicate that by adopting the LMCD Plan for Lake Minnetonka. W* feel that is repetitious and a waste of our time. If the City finis no philosophical differences between our existing regulations and the DNR's, we can adopt th«?m for the entire City and be done with it." Bernhardson stated that Councilmember Jabbour's earlier question regarding approval from adjacent cities does require further research. He said, "There is a question as to whether it is a vote of LMCD from the adjacent municipality that constitutes an acceptable substitute for such approval. There is also a question, if we were to proceed separately, whether the DNR's interpretation of all 14 communities constitute adjacent municipalities that are impacted by the variances." Jabbnur said, "I would be willing to know the answers s soon as possible. Is there a diversion between our existing code and that of the DNR's? Are we going to bo a:iking fur exceptions?" Bernhardson stated that ha has boen w-urking with Jeanne Mabusth and Michael Gaffron in reviewing the shoreland regulations. - 9 -