Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, February 27, 2017 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />10. DEVELOPMENT PROCESS REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS <br />(continued) <br />4. The Committee further recommends the City's wetland management rules align with the <br />Watershed District's. One of the main differences is the City requires an additional setback from <br />the Watershed's buffer. This additional setback is intended to allow people to walk in the area <br />between the house and the wetland buffer area without impacting the buffer. This will require a <br />modification to the wetlands protection ordinance. <br />5. The committee also recommends modification of where and when a wetland delineation is <br />required to be more consistent with the Watershed District. With authorization, this will be <br />handled at the same time as the wetland regulations above. <br />6. The Committee recommends modification of the permit forms, reducing the length to one page. <br />Most of the length can be attributed to information provided to the applicant, but Staff will work <br />to reduce the length of the document. This does not require council authorization. <br />Barnhart noted in 2016, the City Council adopted an ordinance that allowed Staff to certify a boundary <br />line adjustment but only if both lots meet the lot area requirements of the district. The committee <br />suggested reviewing that ordinance. <br />Walsh stated this is about streamlining the process to make it easier. <br />Barnhart noted the Council will see all of these requests again in the future and that Staff is looking for <br />authorization of Staff resources to look into this further and to take these items to the Planning <br />Commission. <br />Crosby asked for clarification on the lot line issue. <br />Barnhart stated a lot line rearrangement is not a subdivision by state statute since a new lot is not being <br />created. Orono's Code currently reads that if both lots meet the minimum lot size requirements and lot <br />frontage requirements, then Staff can certify that. Staff is finding, however, that there are quite a number <br />of lots that do not meet the minimum lot requirements so they have to go through the variance process. <br />The committee is suggesting that the language requiring that both lots meet the lot area requirements. <br />Seals asked if this will be helpful to Staff to clean some of this up. <br />Barnhart stated regardless of the community, every ordinance was established to correct or respond to a <br />problem, and Orono is no different. Orono has requirements for surveys, wetland delineations, and <br />buffers that the City has. Barnhart stated what this review is doing is pulling some of those regulations <br />back, but at the same time, by pulling those regulations back, the City might be opening themselves up to <br />those same issues that originally cause the language to be drafted. <br />Walsh stated the philosophical issue is whether the City is guiding their code for the 5 percent who do not <br />do things correctly or the 95 percent who are doing it correctly. Walsh stated he would prefer to guide the <br />City's code to the 95 percent and that he would rather deal with the five percent differently. Walsh stated <br />the objective is to make it easier for people who own small lots, which is something they talked about <br />while campaigning. <br />Page 17 of 23 <br />