Frequently Asked Questions

Alternatives

1.A. Wildlife movement and habitat should be integrated into development (close to status quo).

1.B. Local experts report wildlife population are healthy.

1.C. Few, if any, human wildlife conflicts occur (e.g. wildlife-vehicle collisions).

1.D. Wildlife are not reliant on humans (e.g. wildlife feeding, bears in trash) (status quo).

Solutions

Direction: Use the best available science to permit development in a way that protects sufficient habitat and connectivity to reduce human wildlife conflicts and promote native species resiliency.

Alternatives

2.A. Wildlife habitat should limit the location of allowed development (e.g. a setback from an eagle nest) (status quo).

2.B. Wildlife habitat should limit the amount of allowed development (height, size, scale, use, etc.).

2.C. Standards to protect wildlife habitat should vary by zoning district.

2.D. Standards should be more restrictive the more valuable the habitat is.

Solutions

Direction: The presence of wildlife habitat on a property should affect the location of allowed development and the allowance for Conditional Uses. The extent of the effect should depend on how valuable the habitat is and the intent of the underlying zoning district; in some instances incentives may be more appropriate than restrictions.

Alternatives

3.A. Set water-body and wetland buffers to protect their function as wildlife habitat (status quo).

3.B. Set water-body and wetland buffers to protect water quality (status quo).

3.C. Set water-body and wetland buffers to protect scenic values.

3.D. Set water-body and wetland buffers based on recreational values.

3.E. Emphasize water-bodies as corridors through Town.

Solutions

Direction: Water-body, groundwater, and wetland protections should focus on water quality and habitat function. Protection of water quality and habitat function in the context of water dependent recreation should be achieved through a combination of these standards and the limitations on Conditional Uses directed in Question 2.

Alternatives

4.A. Study the site when many habitats exist.

4.B. Study sites known to have very valuable habitat.

4.C. Only study the site to determine the exact location of a resource so a buffer can be applied (e.g. wetland delineation).

4.D. Study any site where there might be valuable habitat (status quo).

4.E. Never

Solutions

Direction: The Focal Species Habitat Map, and/or other best available science, should be the basis of any evaluation of a site’s natural resources. In addition, a boots-on-the-ground, site-specific study of varying level of detail is needed when multiple habitat values need to be compared, relatively valuable habitat exists, or when a specific natural resource boundary needs to be identified. Site-specific, boots-on-the-ground studies should be as consistent as possible.

Alternatives

5.A. Mitigate impacts to wildlife habitat (status quo).

5.B. Mitigate impacts to rivers, creeks, streams, ponds.

5.C. Mitigate impacts to wetlands (status quo).

5.D. Mitigate impacts to the buffer areas around water-bodies and wetlands.

5.E. Mitigate impacts from everyday use of a residential lot (e.g. tree cutting for firewood or improved views).

Solutions

Direction: Impacts to habitat, water, wetlands, and setbacks around water and wetlands should be mitigated.

Alternatives

6.A. No, a developer should mitigate on-site or be responsible for coordinating off-site mitigation (status quo).

6.B. Yes, the County should accept fees in-lieu of mitigation and use them to fund and monitor public restoration projects.

6.C. Yes, the County should accept fees in-lieu of mitigation and then direct those funds to the Land Trust, Conservation District, Game and Fish, or other entity for restoration projects that they are responsible for monitoring.

Solutions

Direction: The County should have a habitat restoration and mitigation bank program, but still prioritize on-site mitigation. The preference is for a third party program that does not require County administration.

Alternatives

7.A. Exempt flood control and other public works projects to protect health and safety.

7.B. Exempt development on land under conservation easement.

7.C. Exempt development on “grandfathered” properties that are not currently subject to natural resource protections.

7.D. Exempt agricultural operations.

7.E. Exempt a driveway, water line, sewer line, power line, or other “essential” utility.

7.F. Exempt development dependent on the natural resource, such as a boat ramp or stream restoration.

Solutions

Direction: Agricultural operations and bona fide habitat restoration should be exempt from all natural resource protection standards including environmental analysis and mitigation. Partial exemptions for other types of development discussed by the Natural Resources Stakeholder Group should be used as direction to inform the tiered system of regulations.

Alternatives

8.A. Ensure an expansion does not make the existing impact worse.

8.B. The location and amount of expansion should be reviewed against current natural resource protections as if the existing impact does not exist. (status quo).

8.C. The expansion should only be allowed if the existing building is relocated so that the original impacted natural resource can be returned to its natural state.

8.D. The expansion must be designed to lessen the existing impact.

8.E. The expansion proposal must include mitigation for the existing impact.

Solutions

Direction: Natural resource protections should acknowledge existing impacts and allow for by-right expansion that does not increase the existing impact, including intensity of use. There should be some consideration for the use of incentives and that the expansion be designed to reduce the existing impact when possible, especially related to water quality.

Alternatives

9.A. Clarify current standards (updated status quo).

9.B. Option 9.A, except reduce the agricultural exemption threshold to 35 acres for fencing.

9.C. Option 9.A or 9.B, except that the exemption would not apply if in a wildlife migration corridor.

9.D. Remove all exemptions and require any structural repair or replacement to come into compliance.

Solutions

Direction: Sites classified as “agricultural” by the Assessor that are at least 70 acres should be generally exempt from wildlife friendly fencing standards. Create a working group to identify a collaborative approach to allowing continued permeability and migration through development.

Alternatives

10.A. Current incentives + provide bonus development to projects that provide additional natural resource restoration.

10.B. Current incentives + create a fund to pay landowners for preservation or restoration.

Solutions

Direction: In addition to the existing conservation incentives (PRDs and Floor Area Option), development flexibility should be provided to projects that provide additional natural resource protection. A fund should also be created to pay landowners for preservation and restoration of natural resources.