Laserfiche WebLink
. y ' � <br /> Wetland Ordinance Review <br /> March 26,2013 <br /> Page 6 ;'�^��1 <br /> Invasives Removal Orono code defines an `unacceptable buffer' as one that contains undesirable <br /> plant species such as reed canary grass, common buckthorn, purple loosesirife, leafy spurge and <br /> noxious weeds. VJhen new buffers are being established the City has required removal of any <br /> buckthorn within them, with ongoing maintenance as part of a buffer management plan. This <br /> adds a burden to the individual homeowner, and in many instances the removal of buckthorn <br /> from just the buffer area is ineffective as it will quickly re-invade from adjacent areas. The <br /> MCWD has similar buffer management requirements; but again, MCWD buffer requirements are <br /> not applied to existing single family home situations. <br /> Bolton & Menk Code Review <br /> Attaclament D is a review of Orono's existing wetland ordinance by Robert Bean of Bolton & <br /> Menk. A number of his comments have been addressed above, or are procedural or consist of . <br /> suggested minor wording changes for clarity. A sumnzary of Bean's comments worthy of further <br /> discussion (refer to attachment) includes the following: <br /> 2. We should reconsider the procedures/thresholds for determining what is meant by <br /> `redevelopment'. � � <br /> 3. In 78-1601(c)4 Orono code requires buffers on applicant's-property pertinent to a wetland <br /> that is entirely within the adjacent property. This is nearly impossible to enforce without <br /> neighbor cooperation, is impractical, and is potentially of limited�value. i �;� <br /> 8. Reed canary grass is invasive but commonly in use by State agencies, and is difficult to � <br /> eradicate- so consider removing it from list of`undesirable' buffer species. <br /> �15. The code requires buffer markers for `multifamily residential or business' uses; it doesn't <br /> specifically require them for new �single-family residential development, which is often � <br /> where they would be quite useful. Bean is suggesting we require them whenever there is <br /> an angle point in the buffer edge and where the buffer edge intersects the lot lines, not just <br /> every 200 feet. Staff would recomniend that they be applied to new single-family <br /> developments and at angle points and lot lines. <br /> Issues for Consideration � <br /> Answers to the following questions will assist staff in crafting ordinance revisions reflecting the <br /> Council's desired outcome with regard to wetland management: <br /> 1. Should Orono continue to require that wetland buffers be esta.blished for an existing <br /> developed homesite when a project other than a `complete home rebuild accompanied by <br /> hardcover increase' is proposed? <br /> 2. Should Orono change its buffer width standards to match those of MCWD? If so, should <br /> Orono adopt the MCWD standards for buffer modification [MCWD Wetland Protection <br /> Rule 6 (b thru fl], or continue to require a buffer setback? <br /> 3. Should Orono continue to require avoidance of future nonconfornuties even when the j <br /> buffer requirement is not triggered? r <br />