Laserfiche WebLink
i <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, September 13,2004 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />(James Render, Appeal of Administrative Decision, Continued) <br />an elevation at 940’ projecting substantially into the area of where the proposed house is to be <br />located. Render stated this historic grade was in existence for approximately SS years but was <br />changed at the time of the construction in 1998. <br />Render stated another type of grade for this property would be approved grade, which in his view <br />would be 939.5 ’. Render stated that number was arrived at in a meeting with Staff but that he would <br />argue his approved grade should be 940.S’. Render indicated the 939.5 ’ in his opinion would be the <br />lowest elevation and that he should have the right to the highest grade, which would be the 940.5’. <br />Gaffron stated the issue is what grade exists today. Gaffron noted that the survey from the Applicant <br />shows nothing higher on the property than 936.3, which was the elevation he used rather than a <br />proposed elevation. Gaffron indicated the City Council could elect to use one of the other grades, <br />but that he is not able to make that conclusion based upon what the code directs him to use. <br />Render inquired where the 939.5 ’ elevation came from. <br />Gaffron stated that number did not come from him and that he is unsure where that number was <br />derived from. Gaffron indicated the only number he is comfortable with is the 936.3’, which is the <br />existing grade. <br />Render inquired whether Moorse recalled the 939.5 ’. <br />Moorse stated it was his understanding the 939.5 ’ w'as the elevation that was previously approved <br />with the subdivision. <br />Gaffron indicated he understands the rationale for Render wanting to use the 939.5 ’ but that the code <br />directs him to use the existing grade. <br />Render stated a third t>pc of grade that could be used for this property is a common sense grade of <br />943.6’, which is derived by taking the elevations of the property on either side of this lot and <br />calculating the difference bens ’cen the two elevations in order to arrive at an elevation for this lot. <br />Render indicated the 943.6’ elevation is pretty close to the elevation they are requesting. <br />Render stated the existing grade would make sense in a situation where the house was being tom <br />down, but in a situation where there has been construction on either side of the lot and soils have <br />been borrowed back and forth from the lot in question, the existing grade is different month to month <br />depending on the construction and w ould not really reflect what the actual grade of the properU' is. <br />Render commented he is unaware of a time deadline in which the lot had to be graded to 940.5’. <br />Sansevere inquired what date the historical grade was from. <br />Render stated that grade was established when it was platted in May of 1998. <br />Sansevere inquired whether the 940.5’ is in dispute. <br />PAGES