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 /> Levang asked on Page 4, Items B and C, if what it is saying is that it will be at the discretion of the Orono <br /> Planning Staff. The last line of B reads, "If application of the MCWD is in conflict with City regulations, <br /> the more restrictive requirements shall apply. <br /> Gaffron stated an example would be if they require a 25-foot buffer and the City requires a 35-foot <br /> setback,they would need to meet the 35-foot setback. There may be cases where the Watershed District <br /> does not require a buffer at all but the City will still require a 35-foot setback. <br /> Mattick stated that would not be a subjective standard but it would be a matter of comparing the two <br /> codes, with the stricter regulation being applied. <br /> Levang noted Item C on Page 5 states that the delineation will be at the discretion of the Planning <br /> Director. <br /> Gaffron indicated that is the one area in determining when an in-house delineation needs to be done <br /> versus telling the property owner that a professional needs to define the actual edge of the wetland. The <br /> discretionary part is determining at what point that delineation needs to be completed at a higher level. <br /> Levang asked what the trigger for that requirement would be. <br /> Gaffron indicated if you look at the last line,the requirement for delineation shall be applied where the <br /> wetland exists within 150 feet of the proposed project. <br /> Levang asked if that would then be an objective standard. <br /> Gaffron indicated it would be an objective standard. Even if you reduce it down to 100 feet, it would still <br /> exceed the maximum buffer that the Watershed District might require. Unless it is a close call as to <br /> where the edge is and where the setback is, Gaffron indicates he does not feel the City wants to go down <br /> the road of requiring wetland delineations since it is difficult to get people to complete them. The City's <br /> goal would be to require them only when they are absolutely necessary. <br /> McMillan commented a lot of times people will see cattails and will think that is the edge of the wetland <br /> when it actuality the wetland starts before that based on the soils. McMillan commented she is not sure <br /> where Staff came up with that number but that it does provide quite a bit of protection. <br /> Gaffron indicated it is the same number used by Minnetrista and their intent was to have an easier <br /> situation for its residents to deal with. <br /> McMillan stated in her view 150 feet is very conservative and provides a good amount of protection. <br /> Gaffron stated the requirement for delineation might require it be done in-house but it might not require <br /> the hiring of a professional. Gaffron indicated Staff will attempt to use that discretion in a way that only <br /> hits the cases where it is a close call. <br /> Page 11 of 18 _ _ ____ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.