09-19-2005 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

#OS-3095 September 16,2005 - Page 3 Orono's concurrent jurisdiction over pernianent docks is primarily via the City's floodplaiii regl.ilations, which provide no significant standards pertinent to the approval of permanent docks. Both permanent and seasonal docks fall under the zoning category of accessoi•y structures,and one cannot have a permulent or seasonal dock without a principal i�esidence struciure. The property does contain a principal residence. There are no specific Building Cocie constructioii standarcis for docks. The City will require that a builciing permit be issued to document the existence asld construction of the permanent dock. Wetland Dock Standards The newly-adopted Wetlatid Ordinance allows as a perinitted use within a wetland,docks op to 8'in widtli for "reasonable access to the lake", with the intent that lakeshore properties with lake periineter wetlands should be allowed a dock to open water for boating and other lake recreation uses. This dock would appear to meet that intent. Staff notes that this is a secondary dock for tlie property, with a primaiy seasonal dock located an the main part of Crystal Bay. Because the dock will be constructed either by barge or during the winter under ice conditions,negative impacts to the wetland from the construction process are expected to be minimal. Wetland Buffer Requirement Section 78-1601(c)(1)of the draft Wetla�id Ordinance indicates that wetland buffers will be required when a wetland is altered. Staff is reviewing with the MC WD staff as as to whether the constniction of a permaneizt dock in a wetland would be considered as a wetland alteration triggering a buffer requirement under MCWD rules. If so,in tlus case the impact would be that a buffer would have to be established and maintained on applicants property abutting the wetland. Since the land area around the wetland is primarily undisturbed woods, creation of a buffer would involve merely the establishment of a covenant that requires maintenauce of the buffer and prohibits mowing, fertilizing, maiucuring ar vegetation removal. Removal of buckthorn, if it exists within the buffer area,woiild potentially be a maintenance requirement. Buffer width, if it is determined that one should be required,would likely be 35' per MCWD rules based on wetland basin size,but would most likely have to expand to 50'per Orono ordinance based on lake perimeter wetlands generally being in the lughest "Preserve" management classification. Since this lake perimeter wetland is not shown on MCWD wetland inventoiy or mauagement classification maps, there is a potential that MCWD will conclude that no buffer is necessary. Staff will attempt to reach a conclusion regarding the buffer requirement prior to tlle public hearing. Issues for Consideration 1. Does Plamiing Commission have any concerns regarding the construction of this permanent dock?