Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday,February 27,2017 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> 10. DEVELOPMENT PROCESS REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS <br /> (continued) <br /> 4. The Committee further recommends the City's wetland management rules align with the <br /> Watershed DistricYs. One of the main differences is the City requires an additional setback from <br /> the Watershed's buffer. This additional setback is intended to allow people to walk in the area <br /> between the house and the wetland buffer area without impacting the buffer. This will require a <br /> modification to the wetlands protection ordinance. <br /> 5. The committee also recommends modification of where and when a wetland delineation is <br /> required to be more consistent with the Watershed District. With authorization,this will be <br /> handled at the same time as the wetland regulations above. <br /> 6. The Committee recommends modification of the permit forms,reducing the length to one page. <br /> Most of the length can be amibuted to information provided to the applicant,but Staff will work <br /> to reduce the length of the document. This does not require council authorization. <br /> Barnhart noted in 2016,the City Council adopted an ordinance that allowed Staff to certify a boundary <br /> line adjustrnent but only if both lots meet the lot area requirements of the district. The committee <br /> suggested reviewing that ordinance. <br /> Walsh stated this is about streamlining the process to make it easier. <br /> Barnhart noted the Council will see all of these requests again in the future and that Staff is looking for <br /> authorization of Staff resources to look into this further and to take these items to the Planning <br /> Commission. <br /> Crosby asked for clarification on the lot line issue. <br /> Barnhart stated a lot line rearrangement is not a subdivision by state statute since a new lot is not being <br /> created. Orono's Code currently reads that if both lots meet the minimum lot size requirements and lot <br /> frontage requirements,then Staff can certify that. Staff is finding,however,that there are quite a number <br /> of lots that do not meet the minimum lot requirements so they have to go through the variance process. <br /> The committee is suggesting that the language requiring that both lots meet the lot area requirements. <br /> Seals asked if this will be helpful to Staff to clean some of this up. <br /> Barnhart stated regardless of the community,every ordinance was established to correct or respond to a <br /> problem,and Orono is no different. Orono has requirements for surveys,wetland delineations,and <br /> buffers that the City has. Barnhart stated what this review is doing is pulling some of those regulations <br /> back,but at the same time,by pulling those regulations back,the City might be opening themselves up to <br /> those same issues that originally cause the language to be drafted. <br /> Walsh stated the philosophical issue is whether the City is guiding their code for the 5 percent who do not <br /> do things correctly or the 95 percent who are doing it correctly. Walsh stated he would prefer to guide the <br /> City's code to the 95 percent and that he would rather deal with the five percent differently. Walsh stated <br /> the objective is to make it easier for people who own small lots,which is something they talked about <br /> while campaigning. <br /> Page 17 of 23 <br />