12-11-2017 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

White stated in addition, the practical difficulty statement made about the access easement for the property predates any knowledge of the presence of wetlands and therefore should be allowed. White stated the basis of the developer's argument for the driveway is that statement but he does not know what type of proof the developer has that that is true. White noted the photographic evidence at the sketch plan review showed that it was a wetland and that something changed in 1968 when the access was granted. In 1975, Orono had the whole point still as wetland. White stated he is wondering whether there is any proof that at the time the access easement was given that they had no knowledge of wetland. White stated it appears the City had knowledge of the wetland and that he is not sure what the basis is for the variance. White stated with regard to the fill, it was stated to be 1,300 cubic yards but that there has been no mention of the dirt being moved. At the Planning Commission meeting it was stated that if it is more than that, it would be a different project. White noted they are pulling 1,200 cubic yards out and bringing 1,600 cubic yards back in. White stated that was not addressed and it was proposed at a lot less. White noted the developer is talking about 270 truckloads and that the safety concerns are three times what was discussed and is radically different than what was discussed. Thiesse noted the Planning Commission is a recommending body and that amount was changed at the Council level because they requested the home elevations be raised. Thiesse indicated the number discussed at the Planning Commission meeting was just to give the Council an idea of where the Planning Commission's thinking was at. Schoenzeit noted the City Council can approve a higher number. White stated he does not recall the Council talking about bringing in more fill. White stated his house is at 932' and this house is 934', which is where all the drainage concerns come in since the house will only be 15 feet away. White stated in his view there was not an adjustment made by the Council for the additional fill and that the developer was very vague about the number earlier, which is why the Planning Commission requested a number. White stated this plan is different than what was reviewed in October. Thiesse stated the plan is not significantly different but that the fill numbers have changed. Jonathan Paul, 3532 Ivy Place, stated during the time period he has resided on Casco Point, he has seen a number of homes rebuilt, some of them more than once. During those time periods the construction affects the neighborhood since there are significant problems with traffic, trash, issues with the subcontractors using the park as a urinal, and a lot of safety factors.