05-11-1981 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

bia��or Van Nest - 2 - Page 12 From tt�ese sources we learned the folTowing and feel that the facts and opinions given to us are factual because they came from individuals who either worked �vith, or knew about, Orono' s P].an during the development stages: 1) There are 4871 undevelaped, vacant areas within the Orono- Long Lake area, of �vhich 3517 are listed as suitable �or urban development and 1354 as non-suitable (tvet lands and flood plains) . 2) The general hietropolitan Council policy is to encourage balanced urban development to take place within ttie b4etro Urban Service (bIUSA) as established by the Council. A11 • land listed as "suitable" in the Orono-Long Lake area fa11s �vithin this line. 3) Orono has, over a period of many years , taken a position against any such development, preferring to designate al1 remaining land as rural with no urbanization of t�is area. 4) According to the IYaste Control Commission s-taff, there is sufficient sewer capacity to hardle any reasonable mix o�' urbanlrural growth along High�vay �12 as `ve11 as in the general-Orono area. Dir. Ode made this specific comment . 5) The hietropolitan Council essentially agrees �c=�zth Orono' s current gro�vth projections. The main concern they have had durinb the development of Orono' s Plan is how Orono plans to �istribute its grotvth. Metropolitan Council staff inembers encouraged us, even though Orono' s Plan is virtually completed and under review, to register any concerns we might have. Our overall impression is that it would be possa.ble, now or in the future, for Orono to ask for amendments to its Community b7anagement Plan , if such amendments meet current development � guidelines. jYe are still of the opinion that , from the standpoint o� the school district , a growth plan permitting a reasonable and sensible mix of urban/rural density for the present designated Orono rural area, �could be very beneficial to the scMool system. �Ye are certainly not in �avor of "massive density" growth which blr. Benson alludes to and we do recognize there �re limitations to grocvth. tiye would also like to state that, contrary tu 2vlr. Benson ' s Zetter, the district has lost approximately 450 students since Z974 and projections call for continued loss with serious ramificai;ions for our educational program. As mentioned in � our original letter, we will soon be at 1000 pupils below the capacity of our existing bui.ldin�s.