Laserfiche WebLink
Wetland Ordinance Review <br /> March 26,2013 <br /> Page 5 <br /> Conflicting requirements for the establishment and protection of wetland buffers appears to <br /> currently be the greatest concern with respect to wetlands regulation. As noted above, the <br /> differences between the Orono and MCWD codes to a great extent result from slightly different <br /> philosophies of regulation. MCWD regulates wetlands in a wide variety of communities, <br /> ranging from rural agricultural lands to dense urbanized areas, and has adopted rules that perhaps <br /> represent a compromise between and among the goals of each of those communities. Orono in <br /> 2005 adopted ordinances that were in some respects more restrictive than those of MCWD based <br /> on the City's long history and experience with wetland protection issues, and anticipating <br /> MCWD future rule changes. MCWD updated its Wetland Protection Rule in 2010 to require <br /> buffer widths based on the Functional Assessment of Wetlands rather than merely on wetland <br /> size. While the Orono and MCWD codes as a result of these updates have many similar <br /> provisions, they are not identical. <br /> Attachment C-3 is the "Statement of Need and Reasonableness" ("SONAR") prepared by <br /> MCWD prior to adoption of its rule revisions, which provides some insight as to how they <br /> arrived at their final Rule language. <br /> With commercial or new residential subdivision development, developers generally have an <br /> expectation that they will have to comply with a variety of regulations, including wetland <br /> protection. However, individual homeowners are often taken aback when finding that their <br /> construction project triggers a seemingly unrelated set of requirements because they have a <br /> wetland on the property. The resulting frustration for the individual homeowner is compounded <br /> by then potentially having two jurisdictions to deal with, with two differing sets of rules. While <br /> the MCWD's rules might be met, Orono may require additional information or actions that the <br /> resident sees simply as causing unnecessary delays as well as extra costs. Having to hire a <br /> wetland delineator, the delays while MCWD approves the delineation, the delays caused by not <br /> being able to do a delineation out of season, all add to the mix. The lack of a more coordinated <br /> application process between the two agencies is cumbersome. Also, residents may question why <br /> the least restrictive set of rules is not adequate. <br /> In two significant instances during 2012 in which residents expressed frustration with the City's <br /> wetland ordinance (Deborah Drive and Willow View), MCWD code did not require any actions, <br /> while Orono code required a wetland delineation in both instances, and the Deborah Drive <br /> project triggered establishment of a buffer. Although each case had unique circumstances, it <br /> would be fair to say that both situations would have been completely avoided if Orono's buffer <br /> requirements did not apply to existing single family homes. <br /> Additional Items of Concern <br /> Wetland Distance from Construction Activitv In one of the two most recent instances, the <br /> resident argued that the 400' separation distance between the proposed pool construction and the <br /> downslope wetland should negate the need for a wetland buffer, stating there is `no way' the <br /> runoff from the pool would impact the wetland. In our discussions with MCWD staff, the <br /> consensus was that this argument is not sustainable and does not suggest the need for a code <br /> revision. <br />