04/15/2013 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,Apri115,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit moved,Lemke seconded,to recommend denial of Application#13-3600,Eskuche Associates on behalf of Kathryn Kallas,3048 North Shore Drive. VOTE: Ayes 3,Nays 2, Landgraver and Leskinen Opposed. 5. CITY OF ORONO,WETLAND ORDINANCE AMENDMENT,7:31 P.M.—7:55 P.M. Gaffron noted the Planning Commission and City Council at their joint work session on Apri13 discussed the potential for revisions to Orono's wetland ordinances. The attached memo and exhibits from the work session provide substantial background information, and a number of specific questions were asked to assist in determining a direction to proceed in making ordinance revisions. The responses to those questions are generally summarized as follows: 1. Should Orono continue to require that wetland buffers be established for an existing developed home site when a project other than a `complete home rebuild accompanied by hardcover increase' is proposed? The reason the increase is listed is because that is how the Watershed District deals with existing situations. They do not actually trigger a wetland buffer requirement until or unless it is a complete rebuild on a residential home and the hardcover is increased. Gaffron noted the City has had a couple of situations in the past where people were required by doing an addition to their house or building an accessory structure to create wetland buffers. That has become problematic for those property owners and they have requested the City relook at their regulations. One of the issues was that the Watershed District does not require the same � level of wetland buffer requirements that the City does. In fact, in those situations,the Watershed District would not have required even a delineation of wetland or the establishment of a buffer and a setback from a buffer. At the joint work session,the group said the City should not continue that practice and they should revise their buffer triggers to be in line with those of the MCWD. Upon adoption of an ordinance, in the future any property owner who is doing an addition of a pool, a tennis court, an addition to the house or even a total rebuild of their house, but not increasing hardcover,would not trigger the need for a wetland buffer. 2. Should Orono change its buffer width standards to match those of MCWD?The answer at the work session was,yes; and if so, should Orono adopt the MCWD standards for buffer ' modification [MCWD Wetland Protection Rule 6(b thru fl], or continue to require a buffer � setback? Gaffron recommended the City accept the MCWD's standards for modification of buffer widths,but ensure the City continues to have some setback from the buffer if MCWD regulations don't provide for one. Gaffron noted the MCWD's standards are a little bit higher than the City's standards for the same type of wetland. , Gaffron stated under the assumption that you have to have a buffer that is triggered by Orono's ordinances and the Watershed District's ordinance,the Watershed District does not necessarily end up with a situation that forces there to be a setback from the buffer. The setback is important because the buffer is an area that cannot be mowed. What the City found with Stone Bay,prior to the current City ordinance,was that they were building homes right up to the area of the buffer and a person really could not have any lawn between the house and the buffer. As a result,the City established a 20-foot buffer setback,which has been in place since 2005. Page 11 of 26