Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,Apri115,2013 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> The consensus of the group was that the City needs to retain the ability to require a structure <br /> setback from the buffer. <br /> 7. Staff has no expectation that MCWD would be willing to enforce Orono code requirements that <br /> are more restrictive or different than MCWD Rules. If Orono chooses to have its ordinances <br /> exactly match MCWD codes, it would seem pointless to continue having shared jurisdiction over <br /> identical regulations. Would Orono give up all wetland management authority to MCWD? Or <br /> would MCWD give up all wetland management authority to the City, including its status as LGU <br /> for WCA regulations? Is one of these two options better than the other? <br /> Gaffron noted there certainly are cost and staffing issues if the City was to take over complete <br /> wetland jurisdiction. If MCWD was to take over completely, Staff would have to work out <br /> procedural details for City building permit issuance, but that is a manageable task. Gaffron noted <br /> this item will need more exploration. <br /> 8. ' Is the City satisfied that MCWD has the capacity to enforce their codes in a timely manner <br /> acceptable to Orono? Are there certain risks in Orono giving up complete local wetland control <br /> to another agency? This issue will also need more exploration. <br /> Gaffron stated given the discussion at the work session, it appears there are a few straightforward changes <br /> to the ordinance which at least in concept can be dealt with fairly easily. However,there are nuances <br /> within the MCWD code that Staff would need to review further with MCWD staff to ensure that any short <br /> term code changes the City makes do not inadvertently result in the City giving up authority it needs to <br /> maintain an acceptable level of wetland regulation. <br /> Gaffron stated rather than put an ordinance in front of the Planning Commission tonight, he is attempting <br /> to identify all those areas that might have pitfalls to them and then discuss the issues with the MCWD. <br /> Gaffron noted this item was published for a public hearing. Following public comment, Staff would <br /> recommend the application be tabled to the May 20`f'Planning Commission meeting. <br /> Landgraver stated the memorandum accurately reflects what was discussed at the work session. The <br /> tenor of the meeting was to simplify it and put the City in a position where they could defer to the <br /> MCWD except in the area of the setback. Landgraver commented it now appears to be more complicated <br /> than what was originally anticipated. <br /> Gaffron indicated that is correct. Gaffron stated there are some issues that Staff will need to look at prior <br /> to drafting an ordinance. - � <br /> Landgraver asked if Staff has enough resources to meet their timeline. <br /> Gaffron stated in his view it is still possible by the beginning of summer to have something finalized. <br /> The important point to take into consideration is where the Watershed District stands on these issues and <br /> then make a determination on whether the City can accomplish what they want with the changes. <br /> Leskinen stated the City's overall objective is to eliminate the redundancies but yet still maintain enough <br /> control to accomplish what Orono would like to see done on any particular project. <br /> Page 13 of 26 <br /> , <br />