04-27-2020 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 13, 2020 6:03 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 19 of 25 Printup said the property was proposed to come before the City 2-3 times to take over the alley, and when the house was built a number of years ago, the question came about the alley. It almost seems like it’s another crack at the apple to encroach into the alley for the benefit of one side. He said it needs an encroachment agreement; but he is trying to figure out if the retaining wall is absolutely necessary, or did the landscapers put it in for aesthetics and to help out a little bit and hope it would not get noticed. Walsh noted that it is a skinny lot so it needed variances either way. Mr. Erick Celms, 1535 Highwood Lane, said he wanted to reiterate their submitted comments. They oppose the after-the-fact permit request, noting rules are in place for a reason and people need to abide by them during the duration of a project. The permit should have been pulled at the time of construction or as the retaining walls were being built. He said it is frustrating when people plead ignorance when they knowingly step out of bounds. Walsh asked Edwards if the City found this and brought it to the Council’s attention, or if the item came as an application. Edwards stated it was identified on the document when the applicant was petitioning the City to vacate the easement. Ms. Musgjerd said there are some underground water kickouts built into the side of the hill which helps with the water. The fire lane/easement is pretty pitted, and she does not think there is any issue that their water could encroach into Douglas and Roban Smith’s 4167 lot because that also slopes down. There is a lot of runoff that goes into the lake which is because of the pitch. This has led to a lot of angst among everyone, but they bought the lot and worked with an architect who could put a house on it when the buildable square footage was a little less than the size of a doghouse. They had a landscaper do some stuff, but they do not want to get him in trouble because he did not pull a permit. She understands what the Council is saying, that they have seen this come up before, because the Council has. They would love to own the fire lane so they could add on to their house, but they’ve come to the fact that will not happen because there is too much neighbor opposition. They want to make the property the best it can be. Walsh, based on what Edwards put together, said Item C is considered landscaping and is a non-issue; Item B comes over just a little but would still need an encroachment agreement; Item A is the issue. If the City needs them to take it out, the City needs to fix/redo the swale so it keeps the water out of their yard. Seals agreed that Item A is the big problem, and she would have them take it out and the City would fix it. She said the applicant and neighbors are getting pitted against each other, and then no one wins. The City can say it was a mistake, but they need to play by the rules and have the owner take it out and the City commit to fixing it the right way. That way the neighbors are getting what they want because water is not going onto their property, and the City is following the rules. Crosby stated his assumption is that the retaining wall is on their property but simply in the right-of-way of the fire lane. Walsh and Seals indicated it was in the fire lane. Walsh noted that everything within the orange area on the map being shown is the fire lane.