My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-28-2013 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2013
>
05-28-2013 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/19/2015 4:05:03 PM
Creation date
2/19/2015 4:05:01 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE , <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Tuesday,May 28,2013 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (4. #13-3601 CITY OF ORONO— WETLANDS—ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, <br /> Continued) <br /> Over the past several months,the City has discussed whether they should eliminate the City's jurisdiction <br /> over buffers and turn that jurisdiction over to the Watershed District but continue to have wetland <br /> jurisdiction. Gaffron noted buffers have been a difficult issue for Staff and the residents to deal with. <br /> Staff has had good discussions with the Watershed District on how they currently and possibly in the <br /> future deal with buffers. The Watershed District has indicated that they will be bringing to their Board in <br /> the next month or two a request that instead of having their wetland buffers relate to the functional <br /> assessment and have different numbers for different wetlands for all residential single-family swelling, <br /> they would have a 25-foot buffer that would only be applied to new development. New development <br /> would obviously be a new subdivision or, for existing residences, a total rebuild or an increase in <br /> hardcover. The Watershed District expects that buffer to be 25 feet. For anything that is just an addition <br /> to a house,they would not require a buffer be established. <br /> Staff's concern is if they were to re-establish a setback from the wetland, under the Watershed's buffer <br /> current requirements, someone could construct right up to the wetland itself and the Watershed District <br /> would not necessarily be notified of that or have any control over that. Staff felt it would be better to <br /> have a 26-foot setback. In addition, Staff anticipates the Watershed District would require a 25-foot <br /> buffer in many cases and that the City should require an additional9-foot buffer to come up with the 35- <br /> foot buffer setback to any structures. In cases where there is a question mark about how close someone is <br /> to a wetland, a wetland delineation would need to be done. People are more willing to have a delineation <br /> done rather than establish a buffer that limits the future use of their property. <br /> Gaffron noted the ordinance in front of the Council essentially removes the City's jurisdiction over <br /> buffers. Following StafPs discussions with the Watershed District, Staff is fairly satisfied that their <br /> commercial or nonresidential buffers are going to continue to be equal or more restrictive than what the <br /> City currently has in place. For any commercial, industrial or non-single-family development, Staff is <br /> expecting that the Watershed District will continue to use the functional assessment and the different tiers <br /> of buffer reyuirement. Staff is comfortable with that requirement and Staff anticipates the Watershed <br /> District will end up with a 25-foot requirement for all single-family homes. <br /> Based on the language contained in Subdivision 8, Staff would recommend that the setback table be <br /> revised to incorporate additional language as to the items/activities not allowed within the 35-foot setback <br /> area. As a minimum, hardcover should not be allowed within that setback. Additionally, septic systems, <br /> wells, and other construction should not be allowed. Filling, grading, and excavation within setback areas <br /> are activities which, in our experience,commonly accompany any construction project and have always <br /> been difficult to functionally prohibit. The Council may want to consider adding a sentence that merely <br /> states: "Areas within the required setback area subject to filling, grading or excavation as part of a <br /> construction project shall be re-vegetated immediately upon completion of such earthwork." <br /> Gaffron indicated the draft ordinance has been revised to incorporate these changes. The City Attorney <br /> has reviewed the ordinance draft and is prepared to comment on it. Staff believes that the ordinance <br /> amendments will reduce the financial burdens,time delays and perceived property takings that property <br /> owners have expressed concern about. The amendments should simplify administration of the ordinance <br /> while providing sufficient levels of wetland protection. <br /> Page 10 of 18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.