Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday,May 8,2017 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> 16. #17-3922 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT: WETLANDS REGULATIONS— <br /> ORDINANCE NO. 196,Third Series.—continued <br /> uncomfortable with shifting the policy without data that suggested the City needed to or identified a true <br /> problem. Barnhart stated part of the discussion tonight should be to question whether the City is on the <br /> right path with the setback. The Planning Commission did not feel they had enough information to <br /> answer that question since the City has not heard that the setbacks have no value. <br /> Seals asked why the Watershed District does not also require setbacks in addition to the buffer. <br /> Barnhart indicated the Watershed District looks region wide and the rules are applied the same across that <br /> area. The Watershed District looks to cities to implement stricter rules on a lot by lot basis if the situation <br /> calls for it. <br /> Walsh commented it does not affect the amount of hardcover allowed on a lot or the height of a building <br /> and that it comes down to whether the 35-foot setback is reasonable. <br /> Bamhart noted Plymouth has a 15-foot accessory structure setback and Medina has a 5-foot setback, <br /> which would allow fire pits and other similar structures in that area. <br /> Seals asked whether the Planning Commission looked at different options for that area, such as nothing <br /> within 10 feet or 15 feet, or whether fire pits or other structures should be allowed. <br /> Barnhart stated they did not get into that level of detail but more questioned the purpose of the setback. <br /> Printup stated there is no question that the buffer areas should be left alone. Printup questioned whether <br /> there is a differentiation about whether a fire pit causes water to become contaminated. Printup noted <br /> people are spraying their lawns in that area and that his belief is that a fire pit is pretty innocuous. <br /> Barnhart stated allowing structures within the setback can lead to improvement creep since the edge will <br /> move depending upon the whim of the property owner,which happens now. Barnhart stated he is not <br /> sure he would advocate for placing a fire pit near a wetland since there are usually tall grasses that are <br /> often dry and can catch fire. <br /> Walsh concurred that someone should not put anything in the buffer. <br /> Barnhart noted there are situations where there is a wetland with no buffer but there is a setback. <br /> Walsh commented that could be dealt with separately. <br /> Walsh asked for public comment. <br /> Paul Muldoon, 1801 West Farm Road, stated the proposal to do the desktop wetland delineations is a step <br /> forward since it will provide builders feedback in a timely fashion and accommodates seasonal changes. <br /> Muldoon stated in terms of the setbacks,he strongly supports option one,which makes no changes. <br /> Muldoon noted Orono began implementing their wetland regulations and protections in 1980 and that <br /> there are several reasons for buffers and setbacks, such as a practical need for an additional setback from <br /> Page 23 of 34 <br />