My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-28-2002 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
2002
>
10-28-2002 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/1/2012 8:34:27 AM
Creation date
6/1/2012 8:29:12 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, October 28, 2002 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. • <br />( #02 -2843, PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES OF ORONO, Continued) <br />Mayor Peterson asked Gaffron who the Council needed to speak with, or push, and how should <br />they do so. <br />Gaffron indicated that the 60 day window would expire at the end of the month, however, if the <br />MCWD denies the application of exemption on the 59th day based merely on their staff person's <br />recommendation, that would not give the City an opportunity to make their case to make the <br />wetland exempt. Therefore, the City Consultant suggested the City file for an extension in order <br />to meet with the MCWD TEP panel on November 7 to make our case prior to the monthly <br />meeting that evening. Gaffron felt it was doubtful they would go from the TEP panel that day to <br />the district meeting that night with a recommendation to call it exempt, and it would probably be <br />continued until November 21, 2002. <br />Mutphy inquired whether the TEP meeting could be set for the 7th and whether the City could be <br />put on the watershed district's agenda, so that a final decision could be made November 7, 2002. <br />Gaffron stated that they could attempt to be put on the agenda. <br />Sansevere suggested they make their case at the district meeting on the 7th, similar to how <br />applicants oftentimes skip a step, or recommendations by the Planning Commission, in order to <br />be heard by the City Council here. • <br />White stated that the MCWD could either accept the offer by the City to make the wetland <br />exempt or they could accept the City's offer for some kind of solution, like the developers are <br />proposing. <br />Gaffron indicated that if the developers are required to do some sort of mitigation, they would <br />likely be required by the watershed to file a plan that the watershed would then have to approve <br />for mitigation. While he was unsure how long that process would take, it could potentially take <br />an additional 60 days. <br />Mayor Peterson asked if staff believed the City's hands were tied. <br />Gaffron stated that from a staff perspective, working within the MCWD's system, the City's <br />hands were tied, and it could take some political effort to make things happen. <br />White suggested that staff contact the director of the MCWD and share with them that the Mayor <br />and City Administrator would like to talk with him about a project we have here, could you tell <br />us how the City could work within their system to make their system work for us. White <br />indicated that the City doesn't know their rules, and he believed there were only so many <br />projects that could have as huge an impact for a City as this development. He wanted to explain <br />to the MCWD that the City could not let this multi - million dollar project escape because it was <br />not deemed a priority to the watershed district. • <br />PAGE 14 of 20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.