04-26-1993 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ceil Strauss January 29, 1993 Pace 2 2. 3. Regarding the concern that the prohibition on intensive vegetation clearing does not apply to bluff impact zones, tliis was an oversight and if necessary we could add this to our ordinance. Regarding the lack of a provision "requiring fertilizers and pesticides to be used in ways that minimize their runoff into shore impact zones and public waters by use of earth berms and/or vegetation filter strips", we omitted this basically because it was not included in this section of your model ordinance, although as I look back now I see that it is in the "statewide standards" package. 1 think conceptually we won’t have a problem with this, however, it is such a general statement that it begs for specific guidelines to be enacted... Regarding our lack of a provision that requires a CUP for converting forest land to another use, this again did not appear in the model ordinance and that is why we omitted it. 1 would note that this section has me somewhat confused. "Forest land conversion" by definition is clear-cutting of forested lands to prepare for a new land use. But, what is the definition cf "forested land"? Who decides whether a given parcel is forested or not? What about clear-cutting just a building site within a parcel or lot that is wooded - will this be considered as requiring a CUP? Or, if they leave 2fl£.tree on the parcel, is it D52J considered clear-cutting j We are unaware of any commercial timber harvesting occurring in the City, and our "forested areas" are regularly being developed residentially with probably 50% or more of the trees remaining intact.... If this type of activity is considered as "conversion of forested land to another use", then I think we would find the CUP requirement to be rather awkward. Finally, note that we have purposely avoided adopting a forest preservation crdmance generally throughout the City, waiting to see how things wash out with a few other cities that have adopted one. Regarding the size of controlled access lots, the City Council consciously and with I think a very clear intent, adopted no minimum lot area requirement for such lots, preferring to control the densit)- of shoreline activity and use by adopting specific standards for such lots, i.e.: A.Limiting the number of non-riparian lots gaining access via such lot to only that number which would be allowed riparian access based on zoning district lot width standards (see attached sketch). j