Laserfiche WebLink
Wetlands Ordinance Review <br /> April 11.2013 <br /> Page 2 <br /> 6. Should Orono code be revised to be in complete conformity with MCWD Code? There <br /> are critical aspects of Orono code that are not in MCWD Rules - such as the 20' buffer <br /> setback requirement - that we may not want to give up. If Orono code is revised to be in <br /> complete conformity with MCWD code, a punch list of requirements the City would no <br /> longer enforce includes: <br /> - wetland buffer establishment triggered by improvement projects at existing homes <br /> - ability to require buffer setbacks except where an established documented buffer <br /> already exists <br /> - avoidance of projects that could result in future nonconformities <br /> - buffer establishment triggered by wetlands on adjacent properties <br /> - ability to require removal or management of invasive species in buffers except <br /> when associated with new development projects <br /> Consensus: We need to retain the ability to require a structure setback from the buffer. <br /> 7. Staff has no expectation that MCWD would be willing to enforce Orono code <br /> requirements that are more restrictive or different than MCWD Rules. If Orono chose to <br /> have its ordinances exactly match MCWD codes, it would seem pointless to continue <br /> having shared jurisdiction over identical regulations. Would Orono give up all wetland <br /> management authority to MCWD? Or would MCWD give up all wetland management <br /> authority to the City, including its status as LGU for WCA regulations? Is one of these <br /> two options better than the other? There certainly are cost and staffing issues if the City <br /> was to take over complete wetland jurisdiction. If MCWD was to take over completely, <br /> we would have to work out procedural details for City building permit issuance, but that <br /> is a manageable task. Will need more exploration. <br /> 8. Is the City satisfied that MCWD has the capacity to enforce their codes in a timely <br /> manner acceptable to Orono? Are there certain risks in Orono giving up complete local <br /> wetland control to another agency? Will need more exploration. <br /> Next Steps & Staff Recommendation <br /> Given the discussion at the work session, it appears there are a few straightforward changes to <br /> the ordinance which at least in concept can be dealt with fairly easily. However, there are <br /> nuances within the MCWD code that we need to review further with MCWD staff, to ensure that <br /> any short term code changes we make do not inadvertently result in the City giving up authority <br /> it needs to maintain an acceptable level of wetland regulation. <br /> The broader issue of continuing to have parallel wetland jurisdiction with MCWD when our code <br /> is not completely in sync with theirs, versus stepping back and allowing MCWD to have sole <br /> jurisdiction based on their current code and practices, may take a greater depth of analysis before <br /> a conclusion is possible. Therefore, between now and the May 1 PC work session, staff plans to <br /> meet again with MCWD staff and prepare a draft ordinance for discussion. <br /> This item was published for a public hearing, so if any members of the public wish to comment, <br /> please accept their comments and table the hearing to your May 20 regular meeting. <br />