10-25-1993 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1877 October 22. 1993 Page 4 Orono Subdivision Code Section 11.03, in the definition of dry buildable land, states that dry buildable is "land area occurring within the property lines of a parcel or lot, excluding: drainageways. flowage areas, flood plains, wetlands, marsh land or slopes of \S7c or greater". In the subdivision code definition of "lot area, minimum", for unsewered property it is stated: "In rural zones not served by sanitary sewer, each lot must contain a minimum of two acres of contiguous dry buildable Ivod e.xclusive of wetlands, public and pr ivate rights-of-way. vehicular or pedestrian easements. .:ar‘ace areas below the Ordinarv' High Water Mark of any surface water or areas at or below the flood plain elevation for a spt*cific property. All rural lots must comply with the City’s on-site septic system provisions of the City code." If we historically have not had a problem w ith allowing development in the tvpe of areas defined now’ as Type 1 wetland, should we now become more restrictive? If we allow a two acre lot to contain one acre of Type I and one acre of non wetland, then the property owner may be very limited in what he can do on the property, since the homeowner would not be allowed by other agencies to fill, excavate or alter that wetland, or build anything on it, without 2:1 mitigation elsewhere. Is this a fair or acceptable position in which to place our homeowners? As an alternative, should the City require the developer to do mitigation up front so that each lot has a min mum 2.0 acres of area that is fullv useable for septic, accessory buildings, landscaping, driveways, etc.? If we do require the developer to do the mitigation up front by moving Type 1 wetlands to areas where they are not "in the way", will the City give dry buildable redit over the area where mitigation wetlands are created? This probably is only a factor in a PRD where overall density credit is required to compensate for lots smaller than two acres each (recall that this concept was a problem in French Creek because of weak controls on the septic sites, in staffs opinion). Please refer to Exhibit D. which suggests some options and concerns regarding how we michi ueal w’iih Type 1 wetlands in a two acre lot. Septic Setbacks .Since the 1970’s Orono’s septic code (Chapter 12) has required a 75 ’ setback between wetlands and septic systems. Q: Why? A: There are two reasons: 1 To protect wetland surface water quality from being degraded by nutriems from treated sewage, or ptillutants from untreated sewage. 2. To maintain adequate horizontal separation such that tlie wetland won’t negatively affect proper function of the drainficid or flood the tanks.