09-13-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r p MnsrUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 23, 2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. Curtis revicw'cd the history regarding the mandatoiy revisions to the floodplain regulations within the Floodplain and Wetlands Management Ordinance to be adopted by September 2, 2004 by local governments. If Council finds certain elements of the ordinance in need of further study, Curtis suggested that the Council consider removing those for review over the next few weeks. Sansevere asked if staff had any concerns regarding the proposed changes. Curtis stated that the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the draft ordinances. Sansevere moved to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 16, 3*''* SERIES , revisions to Orono Zoning Code: Floodplain and Wetlands Management as presented. White seconded. Murphy had several questions regarding the wetland portion of the regulation changes and suggested the Council hold a work .session to discuss the ramifications of this piece of the ordinance should the City choose to adopt the MCWD version regarding buffers. He was concerned that by adopting the MCWD descriptions, as opposed to becoming its own LGU, the City might inadvertently be painting itself into a comer. He preferred to gain an understanding of exactly what the City' was buying into relying on the MCW’D, before agreeing to the terms. Gaffron suggested the Council separate the floodplain and wetland codes into two separate issues. He agreed that this would be the City’s opportunity to separate out wetlands from floodplains and analyze the impacts of the MCWD’s interpretations of the code’s language. Gaffron stated that, although the City needed to adopt the Floodplain ordinance this evening, wetland options might be to impose a moratorium on wetland work until the City holds its discussions or adopting the ordinance within the packet this evening and then taking time to review and amend it after the fact. Murphy reiterated that he felt the Council must understand what they are approving before endorsing the MCWD wetland ordinance. He was concerned with the way the watershed ordinances were going in their interpretations of the code and wanted to spend more time discussing options to move w ater. He was fearful of items #3 and 4 of the summary of the w etland Ordinance changes that allow staff or individual MCWD member, at their discretion, to impose a slop work order on a project if they think it may be posing an adverse effect on a w etland. McMillan felt the ordinance took a positive step in applying the ordinance to new development and redevelopment. Murphy pointed out that there is an issue w-ith the Morrie’s lot at the intersection of Highway 12 and Old Crystal Bay Road, w'ho has lost developable land after having been given approval two years ago, and been cited w ith a stop work order by the MCWD due to a ditch that they believe is a wetland now. Acting Mayor White agreed that this is a serious issue and should be discussed further. Peter Johnson, Mome’s Mazda Attorney, intetjected that two years into theu" project the MCWD has decided to call a publicly maintained ditch, that was an engineered water channel created to move water, a wetland. PAGE 6 of 9