Laserfiche WebLink
. C 'i.. 1« w i ^ m££TIN6 <br />To:Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmcmbers <br />Ron Moorse. Citv Administrator <br />8 :m <br />CITY OF ORONO <br />From: <br />Date: <br />Subject: <br />Michael P Gaffron. Assistant Planniniz & Zoning Administrator <br />June 21. 1993 <br />Shoreland Ordinance - DNR Appioval <br />List of Exhibits <br />A - DNR Letter Dated 3 25/93 With Attachment <br />Fifteen months after our adoption of the Shoreland Ordinance, the DNR has finally issued <br />a letter formally approving our ordinance. The letter indicates approval of our flexibility request <br />and "conditional" approval of the o*. Imance. The conditional approval indicates mainly items <br />of clarification or "housekeeping", which should be adopted the next time we do a general <br />zoning code amendment. To briefly revif*w their hst of four conditional items. <br />1. These are merely statute recodifications. <br />2. We can certainly add "lockbox" to the definition of water-oriented accessory <br />structures. Note that by definition, "stairways, fences, docks and retaining walls" <br />are not considered water-oriented accessory structures. Our current detinition <br />reads: <br />"24. Water-oriented accessory structure or facility. A small above ­ <br />ground building Vi other improvement, except stairways, fences, docks, <br />and retaining walls, which, because of the relationship of its use to a <br />surface water feature, reasonably needs to be located closer to public <br />waters than the normal structure setback. Examples of such structures and <br />facilities include boathouses, gazebos, screen houses, fish houses, pump <br />houses, and detached decks. ” <br />We would merely add "lockboxes" to this list of examples. Council will <br />remember that a different section of the Shoreland Ordinance notes that none of <br />the examples are allowed in the lakeshore setback zone other than the lockbox. <br />3.In the "intensive vegetation clearing" section of our ordinance, we noted that such <br />activity couldn ’t occur in the 0-75 ’ zone or on sleep slopes. The DNR wants us <br />to include "bluff impact zone" as another area where intensive vegetation clearing <br />isn’f allowed. This seems reasonable. Tliey also suggest we expand the 0-75 ’ <br />zone to include bluff impact zone in regards to the prohibition on cutting 6" or <br />larger trees, which also seerrs reasonable.