Laserfiche WebLink
F <br />1220 Tenkawi SkortHnc Alicratioii <br />November 10.2004 <br />rage 2 <br />This summer we found ihal ihc applicants without the appropriate City appro\ als had done <br />significant work and grading to the slioreline in the area of the ‘hump ’. This included rip-rapping <br />ihc shoreline; construction of a 2' high boulder all directly above and adjacent to the np-rap, and <br />grading the enUre area of the hump, lowering it approximately 1 -2’ in my estimation upon visiting <br />Uk site. Tlicre was virtually no understory remaining in tlve area graded and pre-existmg vegetative <br />and topographic screening of the house from the lake was substantially reduced <br />1 have no doubt that the shoreline required i ip-rapping The bank at the shore is fairly abrupt, <br />and erosion of the bank was a concern. The problem w ith the current plan is that while it <br />may protect the integrity of the bank with a 2'boulder wall directly above the rip-rap, there is <br />no flat area between the top ofrip-rap and this low er w all to plant screening \ egetation. Tire view <br />from the lake is essentially a 4*-5 ’ higli w all of i ock. about 40* long. Screening this low er w all w ith <br />some type of vine, rather than pushing the w all back into the hill to gain flat planting space for <br />sluubbery in front of it, maybe appropriate. <br />The proposed upper wall, yet to be placed, is in two diverging sections; one to hold up the bank <br />at the north end where tire hump was removed; tltc second being parallel to the shore. 25' in Icngtlt, <br />and about 5* back from the initial wall. These second w alls are proposed to be approximately! .5' <br />in height. The proposed screening with shrubbery bcpveen the lower and upper walls may help <br />to screen the upper walls, but I question w hether they are necessary, as opposed to starting at the <br />top of the lower wall and rd}uilding the hump with fill, establishing 3:1 sloptt, and then sodding or <br />establishing some other deep-rooted ground cover on the hump to eliminate surflcial erosion <br />This w ill yield a more natural looking shoreline than the additional retaining wall. <br />The applicants’ project as proposed, and as evidenced by the submitted cross-sections, is <br />intending to create a gently sloped law n area between the house and the lake that will tend to drain <br />to the south, away from the house but not directly to the lake. This is not an unreasonable <br />goal, as long as all the remaining trees arc preserv ed and substantial natural vegetation between <br />the house and the lake can be preserved or re-established. However, this plan does not re­ <br />establish the hump to the hei^t at w hich stafTbelieves it previously existed, and therefore the <br />topographic screening of the house is compromised to the extent of 1-2'. <br />The Orono Comprehensive Plan discourages the use of retaining walls. CMP Part 3 A, Ihc <br />Environmental Protection Plan, in the section titled General Policies for Natural Resource <br />Management. Policy 9 states: <br />"9. Lake shorelines will be protected from alteration. Natural vegetation in <br />shoreland areas will be preserv ed insofar as practical and reasonable in order to retard <br />surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clearcuning will be <br />prohiliited. In areas of soil or wave action erosion, natural stone rip rap shoreline protection <br />will be encouraged."