Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,June 21, 1999 <br /> III (#2) #2492 RICK AND GAIL LUZAICH,2490 OLD BEACH ROAD,AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE <br /> AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT—(cont.) <br /> Mueller stated that the property owner should have the right to have a view of the lake, noting that <br /> the forester's plan does not allow that view and would create more of a wall of vegetation. <br /> Mueller remarked that he made numerous attempts to contact Paul Weinberger in an effort to <br /> obtain the name of the City's forester and was not able to reach him until June 7th. Mueller stated <br /> he was not able to contact the forester until June 11th and was informed that he just received the <br /> information regarding this application the other day. During the conversation with the forester it was <br /> apparent that the forester was not provided with the revised landscape plan by the Applicant. The <br /> forester's plan was not received until the 14th, which did not allow time for the Applicant to meet <br /> with the forester and to develop a revised plan based upon his recommendations. <br /> Mueller remarked that there are discrepancies in the number of trees and the size of the trees <br /> that were purportedly removed, and that these issues will need to be worked out before another plan <br /> is revised. Mueller commented that the Applicant's landscape plan was designed to meet the <br /> spirit of what the Planning Commission had recommended at the last meeting. <br /> Stoddard commented that the Planning Commission wanted the Applicant's landscape architect <br /> to meet with the City's forester in order to develop a plan that would be agreeable to all parties and <br /> is in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Stoddard stated he would like Mueller to <br /> meet with the City's forester in order to address some of these issues. <br /> Hawn stated that there are some deficiencies in the Applicant's landscape plan which need to be <br /> addressed, and suggested that Mueller meet with the City's forester to discuss these issues. <br /> • Hawn noted that the Comprehensive Plan calls for restoration of the canopy that was removed. <br /> Lindquist stated that it was clear at the last Planning Commission meeting that the City was looking <br /> for restoration of this area, which is still the City's goal for this property. <br /> Luzaich remarked that in his opinion this landscape plan does meet that objective. <br /> Reznick stated that the revised landscape plan does include vegetation and trees that are <br /> indigenous to the area as was specified by the Planning Commission at the prior meeting. Reznick <br /> inquired where the term reforestation is used in the Code, and what is the City's authority to <br /> require restoration. <br /> Hawn stated that the City's goal is to re-establish what was removed,which is something that the <br /> City has required in the past in similar circumstances. Hawn stated that the Comprehensive Plan <br /> is merely a suggested code of property conduct and not a criminal code. <br /> Stoddard stated that some of these issues should be handled by the City Attorney and City Council. <br /> Smith commented that the City has applied the same restoration concept to other similar <br /> situations in the past. <br /> Gaffron stated that this happens approximately once a year and that it has been the City's practice <br /> to require reforestation of the area that has been cleared. Gaffron commented that it is not realistic <br /> to expect the property owner to replace the larger trees with similar trees of the same size. <br /> There were no public comments. <br /> ill Reznick distributed photographs of the neighboring properties to the members of the Planning <br /> Commission. <br /> 5 <br />