PC report/encroachment issue - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCII.MEETING Monday,January 12,2015 7:0{I dclock p.m. (3. 2325 GLENDALE COVE—ENCROACHMENT ISSUE conunued) Mrs.Hcehn stated they want to be respectful of the wetland. Hoehn stated following the verbal approval, they went ahead and spent the money on the additional structures only for them to come back and say that it needs to be removed. Hoehn stated it is based on financial concerns and fiustration on their part. Mr.Hcehn stated the lot dces offer some seclusion with the wetlands and that they want to go out of their way to make sure that it is preserved. Hoehn indicated the part of the wall that is in the wetland buffer is the very tip of the concrete pad and the rest is in the buffer replacement area,which is land that was designated by the developer. Levang asked how amenable they are to removing the fire pit. Mr.Hcehn stated they were working within a certain boundary and that there was a substantial cost to that structure. Hcehn stated there are probably two rocks that are in the wetland buffer itself. Hcehn noted according to City ordinances,the buffer is now at 35 feet but at the time they purchased the property,their title documents reflect 25 feet. Hoehn stated he measured from the boundary stake for the wetland boundary and the closest rock encroaches by roughly 2.5 feet. Walsh stated he appreciates all the documentation that has been submitted and that it is very obvious that they were proactive. Walsh stated it appears the Watershed District failed to mention that they need to follow up with Orono. Walsh stated given the different layers of regulations,it can become confusing. Walsh stated if the Watershed District agrees to whatever form of buffer replacement or are willing to compromise,he would be fine with that. Walsh stated he would rather have citizens who are attempting to be proactive up front rather than citizens who do not make that attempt. Mr.Hoehn stated the Watershed District inspected the pmperty twice and that they had every opportunity to post the boundary or provide a map showing the location of the wetland. Hcehn stated the heartache comes from having to remove something that you paid for while working under the direction of what they thought was the appropriate agency. McMillan asked if they have a final agreement with the Watershed District. Mr.Hoehn stated nothing has been finalized at this point and that they basically received a letter outlining the meeting they had previously. Curtis stated the letter is included in the Council's packet and indicates that the Watershed District would like the buffer area to be native grasses. McMillan stated there are two buffers here,the regular wetland buffer and the buffer replacement area. McMillan noted the buffer replacement area replaces wetland that was f lled on another lot,which is tough for these property owners since they lose some of their back yard. Mr.Hoehn noted the wall has a very minimal impact to the wetland buffer. Page 6 of 19