Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,August 16, 2004 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#04-3039 Proposed Revisions to Orono Zoning Code, continued) <br /> elevation <br /> -Variances—additional variance criteria <br /> 7. Nonconforming Uses section regarding historic structures, substantial damage and <br /> substantial improvement. <br /> Curtis indicated the proposed changes to the Wetland Ordinance would apply in the following <br /> situations: <br /> 1. New Development—A subdivision creating new lots or development of vacant land will be <br /> subject to the requirements of this ordinance; or <br /> 2. Redevelopment—At any time when a property is redeveloped(i.e.new principal structure <br /> built)the property will be expected to meet the requirements of this ordinance; or <br /> 3. At any time a land use application is determined by staff or the MCWD to have adverse <br /> affects on a wetland; or <br /> 4. At any time a project consists of grading, fill or results in a disturbance area which exceeds <br /> 50 cubic yards or 5000 square feet on properties where wetlands are located. <br /> Curtis explained one of the goals of this new ordinance is to incorporate existing MCWD regulations <br /> regarding buffer strip requirements and size. In addition, the City is also establishing regulations <br /> exceeding MCWD requirements as follows: <br /> 1. Establishment of an official City Wetland Map in an effort to streamline our regulation <br /> and offer a concise map for staff and the public. <br /> 2. Establishment of a 20-foot setback from the buffer for structures. <br /> 3. Establishment of criteria for what defines an"acceptable"buffer such as aesthetics and <br /> functionality. <br /> 4. Requirement for submittal of surveys and delineations in an electronic format,which will <br /> enable the City to update the official City Wetland Map with each new delineation. <br /> Staff recommends approval of both of the draft ordinances. <br /> There were no public comments. <br /> Rahn noted the Planning Commission and Staff were able to discuss a number of the revisions at the <br /> joint work session. <br /> PAGE 2 <br />