Laserfiche WebLink
m- - <br />i ^ <br />H <br />L <br />r ■ <br />K _ <br />Wetland Ordinance <br />August 9,2005 <br />Page! <br />Ongoing Reviews/Revisions. On September 9, 2004 Council and staff met with Jolm <br />Smyth, wetland specialist with Bonestroo and Associates, to discuss the various elements <br />of the draft wetland ordinance. At that work session Council directed that staff: <br />• review and reconsider the triggers for when wetland buffers will be required <br />- consider the pro's and con's of the City becoming I.ocal Govermnent Unit <br />(LGU) for administering tiie Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) <br />“ meet with MCWD staff to determine what potential issues may arise from the <br />City taking over as LGU <br />On October 7,2004 City staff met with MCWD staff and discussed a variety of wetland <br />topics including the level of review and permitting authority MCWD might retain with <br />regards to buffers, and MCWD's expectation in terms of oversight, once Orono becomes <br />LGU. We also discussed the topic of buffer triggers. In general, as long as Orono’s <br />pertinent ordinances were found acceptable to tlie MCWD, they would hand over WCA <br />and other wetland review and permitting authority to Orono. <br />At woric sessions on October 7 and 21, Council reviewed the draft ordinance and in <br />particular discussed the topic of buffers and when they would be required. A primary <br />conclusion was that language stating that “a buffer may be required” when “a variance, <br />CUP or site plan review has the potential to have indirect adverse impacts to the <br />wetland ”, was too subjective and should be eliminated, and that objective criteria should <br />be added for defining more specifically when an activity has 'the potential to adversely <br />impact a wetland.” Council als~ asked staff to specifically look into a few critical areas: <br />1) how we will treat golf course ponds; 2) how will we define setbacks from a wetland <br />that doesn’t have an established buffer, where the owner may be doing something that <br />doesn’t trigger a buffer, or where the wetland that is impacted is on the property next <br />door; and 3) how to treat lake-perimeter wetlands. <br />Revised language addressing the Council’s directives was presented by staff at a Council <br />work session on November 18,2004. Council also reviewed airphoto depictions of how <br />various familiar properties with wetlands would be impacted by the revised buffer <br />triggers and buffer requirements. <br />On February 28,2005 the moratorium was extended to August 23,2005 in order to allow <br />time for further review and refinement of the draft ordinance. <br />Revisions June-August 2005. A revised diaft was prepared in June 2005 and this was <br />reviewed by the Council at a number of work sessions during June and July. These <br />discussions resulted in additional changes including: <br />- Revising the 'Golf Course Partial Buffer Exemption’ to be offered at the tinie a <br />buffer would be triggered rather than requiring golf courses to apply <br />within one year of adoption of the ordinance - See Page 8