My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-22-2017 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2017
>
05-22-2017 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/24/2019 2:54:40 PM
Creation date
5/24/2019 2:45:09 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
279
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, May 8,2017 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />16. #17-3922 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT: WETLANDS REGULATIONS — <br />ORDINANCE NO. 196, Third Series. — continued <br />lake owner can have a yard right up to the edge of the water as well as riprap and stone that allows the <br />water to run off faster into the lake. In addition, there is no buffer of uncompacted soil and no 16 to 20 <br />feet of weed bed. Kinve stated that would provide water protection and buffers that would dramatically <br />improve water quality around the lake. <br />Kinve stated for a lot of people that are concerned about water quality, they associate it with the lakes, <br />where wetlands already have a lot of built-in protections that lake properties do not. Kinve noted an <br />MCWD buffer provides a minimum of 12.5 feet, usually 16.5 feet from the wetland edge of undisturbed <br />vegetation and uncompacted soil, which slows and filters runoff from the surrounding property. <br />Accordingly, the MCWD does not require any setback for structures from a delineated buffer as the <br />buffer itself is the necessary and prudent protection for the wetland. As such, it would be completely <br />logical if Orono were to also require no additional setback from a delineated buffer. <br />Kinve commented he realizes that the prevailing attitude in Orono is that we need to be better than the <br />established standards. Kinve stated personally he is not a fan of more for more sake but that the <br />community should arrive at a common sense compromise that addresses many concerns that have been <br />raised at the Planning Commission meeting and tonight. Kinve stated he would suggest that a principal <br />structure be set back ten feet from an established buffer. An accessory structure, like a shed, patio, or a <br />sport court, should be allowed two feet back from a required buffer provided that the structure could be <br />constructed and/or maintained without interfering with the buffer. <br />Kinve noted the recommended changes that he just went over are all above and beyond the current <br />MCWD requirements. These changes address concerns about allowing enough room for homeowners to <br />walk around their house or maintain any hard surface near their home without impacting the buffer. <br />For setbacks with wetlands without a delineated buffer, Kinve stated he would suggest they maintain the <br />35 -foot setback. The benefit to maintaining the 35 -foot setback is that the City could encourage better <br />environmental quality. Kinve stated they would be creating an incentive that does not exist today for a <br />property owner to establish a buffer on their property to achieve more use of their property. If nothing is <br />done, it will continue to allow someone to mow and spray chemicals all the way up to the edge of the <br />pond and let that run off into the pond without any filter or any type of buffer. Kinve stated if someone <br />wanted to build a deck, they could establish a buffer and control the runoff much better. <br />Kinve stated he is requesting that the City not go to the greater/or standard. Kinve stated his <br />recommendations is 10 feet for a principal building or structure; and if there is not have a buffer and there <br />is a wetland, there should be a 35 -foot setback. If the person wants to come to the Planning Commission <br />to reduce that setback, they can seek a variance but that they also have the option of establishing the <br />buffer. Kinve stated in his view that would be fair to all existing homes and would allow people to more <br />fully use their property. <br />With respect to hardcover issues and runoff, Kinve noted they are not changing anything with respect to <br />hardcover. The buffer in and of itself is going to slow down and prevent the type of pollution that people <br />are looking to reduce or prevent. <br />Page 25 of 34 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.