Laserfiche WebLink
w <br />r <br />■m <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, November 18,2002 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />Rahn reiterated that the City would either locate a permit for the deck or not, and if not, the <br />applicant would have to apply for an after-the-fact variance. <br />With regard to the unresolved item #6, Hawn stated that, while she believed the applicant <br />had not committed this himself, she believed this to be the most offensive of the violations. <br />Manley reiterated that he had not changed the plan or grade, and in fact, his original <br />proposal stepped up the grade. <br />Hawn wrestled with the fact that in 1999 the application to grade in the 0-75’ setback was <br />denied, and here today, it has been done anyway. <br />• « <br />Manley, again, maintained that it was a previous owner who had committed this wrong. <br />Bremer pointed out that, it is only at times when homeowners come before the Planning <br />Commission, that the City is given the opportunity to correct these past indiscretions. <br />Rahn stated that the shoreline and riprap restoration projects are different issues than the <br />grading. To be consistent, Rahn felt the grade should be restored to its original state. <br />Gaffron stated that VV^einberger had believed the grading was done illegally and not <br />according to code when the property was purchased. <br />Manley reiterated that he never did any of the grading and questioned why the City <br />allowed him to put in his windows and door and step down basement if they had a problem <br />with it. <br />Rahn stated that the Planning Commission was attempting to give the applicant the <br />guidelines he so desired. <br />PAGE 31 of 28 <br />fjimiiiitMni aiilii <br />1