My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
#3662-deny variance-1996
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
S
>
Somerset Lane
>
2915 Somerset Lane - 04-117-23-24-0019
>
Resolutions
>
#3662-deny variance-1996
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/22/2023 5:11:01 PM
Creation date
2/22/2019 2:20:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
x Address Old
House Number
2915
Street Name
Somerset
Street Type
Lane
Address
2915 Somerset La
Document Type
Resolutions
PIN
0411723240019
Supplemental fields
ProcessedPID
Updated
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
, ,. <br /> � O� <br /> • O O <br /> �b. - CITY of ORONO <br /> � � � <br /> '�' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCII <br /> ���kE H�g'�G NO. 3 6 6 2 ��� <br /> � S <br /> 7. Per guidelines established by the Department of Natural Resources, an open water <br /> area suitable for habitation of waterfowl should be designed with irregular shorelines <br /> with flattened side slopes at an 8:1 side slope. The flattened side slopes will allow <br /> for the restoration of vegetation that provides the vegetation cover necessary for <br /> suitable habitat for waterfowl. <br /> g. 'During the Planning Commission's review of the application,the applicant was asked <br /> to consider amending the plan that would allow for the development of an irregular <br /> shoreline and to flatten slopes. The applicant asked that a minimum 4:1 slope be <br /> maintained along a portion of the sho:eline so that water areas could be viewed from <br /> view windows of future residence. <br /> 9. The majority of the Planning Commission voted to deny the application as proposed <br /> on the following findings: <br /> • A. Applicant has presented no hardship to support the alteration within the <br /> designated wetland area. <br /> B. Applicant's plans conflicted with benefits set forth by applicant. It appeared <br /> to members that aesthetic reasons were applicant's principal concern as <br /> applicant appeared to be more concerned with the view of the open water <br /> from the residence. <br /> C. To approve the current application would establish negative precedent in <br /> dealing with the adjacent land owners who may also wish to alter the <br /> designated wetland in the same manner. <br /> 10. Mark Gronberg, the applicant's consultant, noted his familiarity ��ith this property <br /> over the years noting that old drain tiles had not been maintained by former o��ner <br /> allowing for the restoration of wetlands within the low areas. The restoration to <br /> wetlands of these low areas are considered an environmental benefit not as a negative <br /> impact on the property. The best treatment for surface runoff is to allo�T «�ater to <br /> filter through wetland area before entering the main drainageways rather than <br /> allowing them to be carried via underground drainage tiles. <br /> • Page 3 of 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.