PC report/encroachment issue - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CTI'Y COUNCIL MEETING Monday,January 12,2015 7:00 o'clock p.m. (3. 2325 GLENDALE COVE—ENCROACHMENT ISSUE continued) Curtis stated to her knowledge the City will not be involved in that unless the Council has a certain preference for what they would like to see planted in that area. Curtis stated to her understanding the Watershed District will require native species. McMillan asked if the City would have required any#hing for the buffer area as part of the subdivision even if there was no wall there. Curtis stated at the time this development was created,the Watershed District had allowed some filling or some impacts to wetlands and wetland buffer areas. The areas that were considered buffer replacement azeas were expected to be vegetated by the MCWD and the City,which was not done in this case. Levang asked if the documents specify that. Curtis stated the Flowage and Conservation Easement does specify that. Casey Hoehn,property owner, stated they closed on their house the end of January of 2014 and subsequently moved in. The retaining walls were not part of the original survey from the builder since they were not sure what they were dealing with exactly. Hcehn stated in the spring they elected not to go with the builder's landscaper and instead hired their own landscaper. Hoehn indicated they then approached the Watershed District. Hoehn stated since it was a wetland buffer area,it was his understanding the regulations of the Watershed District supersede the City's regulations. There was some back and forth with the Watershed District on the buffer area and they performed some site visits. Hoehn stated they informed the Watershed District that they would like to construct a retaining wall in an attempt to address some severe erosion controls. Hcehn indicated they did receive verbal approval from the Watershed District for that wall and that it was not until after the final inspection by the City that they found out the wall was an issue. Levang stated she appreciates the letter submitted by the Hoehn's and that it dces appear they were proactive in this matter. Levang stated she dces have a question about their letter under the recommendation section. Levang noted the letter states,"We will also work with the MCWD on a cost effective compromise with seeding natural grasses and vegetation in agreed upon locations..." Levang stated in her view compromise is not the right term and that they will need to comply with what the MCWD requires. Levang stated the Council needs to be assured that they will do whatever is necessary to protect the wetland and buffer areas and that the language she read sounds a little equivocating. Hoehn stated when he said compromise,he was speaking more to a cost effective solution. Hcehn stated under the approval of the Watershed District,they were provided a boundary,which is depicted in the pictures as the second silt fence.Hoehn indicated they then used that as our boundary. Hoehn stated he would be willing to replace certain areas with natural grass but that he has already incurred the cost of sod and irrigation. Hcehn stated he was hoping he could speak with the Watershed District about a possible compromise where he would not have to tear up all the sod. Page 5 of 19