Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, January 11, 2010 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  Page 4   <br />   <br />(3. #05-3164 CITY OF ORONO – CONSERVATION DESIGN ORDINANCE – ORDINANCE <br />ADOPTION NO. 67, THIRD SERIES, Continued) <br /> <br />Gaffron stated a natural resource specialist should probably be hired by the developer in order to help him <br />meet the requirements of the ordinance. Gaffron noted the developer will likely incur some additional <br />costs in order to meet the requirements of the City. The ordinance does contain a set of criteria for <br />determining whether an application meets the goals desired by the City. <br /> <br />McMillan commented she does have a concern that the ordinance will add costs to a development. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated one of the benefits of having an ordinance that is somewhat flexible is that it gives the <br />Council some leeway on applications. <br /> <br />Murphy noted the original Rural Oasis Study was done by DSU and AES, which is where a number of <br />these items were compiled from. Murphy commented the City needs a good pictorial presentation of <br />what is being requested, which is what was done by DSU as part of the Rural Oasis Study. The City is <br />attempting to basically create a series of rules that are flexible in the City’s Conservation Design <br />Ordinance. <br /> <br />Franchot stated there needs to be a good definition for invasive species and non-native species. Franchot <br />noted there are a number of species in this area that are not native. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated there are state regulations concerning invasive species. There are a variety of things that <br />are invasive that are required to be removed and a variety of invasive plants that are not regulated. <br /> <br />Jennifer Haskamp stated she is here on behalf of Susan Seeland and that she would like to share a few <br />comments with the Council. Haskamp indicated she worked with DSU at the time the ordinance was <br />drafted and is well aware of the process that was taken to create the ordinance. Haskamp stated she has <br />reviewed the ordinance and has expressed several comments during the public hearing phase and has <br />submitted written concerns. <br /> <br />Haskamp expressed concerns that the ordinance before the Council tonight will achieve exactly what they <br />are looking for. Haskamp stated she has a letter prepared for the Council’s review but would like to <br />summarize some of the key points contained in the letter. <br /> <br />The first concern with the ordinance is regarding the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the fact that <br />the 2030 Comprehensive Plan has not been formally adopted as a policy document at this point, which <br />raises some issues. State statute says that once a City’s comprehensive plan is adopted, you have nine <br />months after adoption of the document to update all of your official controls, which this ordinance would <br />be considered an official control. Haskamp stated she feels this ordinance is premature since they have <br />not had the opportunity to comment on the comprehensive plan, which is the policy document. <br /> <br />Murphy asked who the “we” is she is referring to. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Item #02 - CC Agenda - 01/25/2010 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 01/11/2010 [Page 4 of 13]