07-28-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. history of this property can be deemed as a hardship, then a recommendation for approval of the after-the-fact variances per the revised removal plan would be in order. 2. Existing encroachments of wetland or required wetland setbacks by retaining walls, fill or paved surfaces should be removed. 3. Retaining walls should be removed wherever they extend outside the property boundaries, and any walls to remain within S' of the lot lines should be reviewed by staff to determine whether they are needed to support steep slopes or whether they are purely aesthetic in nature, and those not necessary to support the topography of the site should be removed. 4. All landscape bed lined with fabric or plastic shall have such liner removed. Chair Smith questioned whether the unique circumstances surrounding this application could be considered hardships. Gaffron stated that, while the applicant should have done some further investigation before purchasing the property, there is some debate over whose fault the overages of hardcover could be blamed. Although certainly unique, Gaffron acknowledged he did not know if they constitute hardships by definition. Chair Smith pointed out that the original approvals allowed 30% hardcover. During the last meeting the Commission asked the applicant to get as close to 35% hardcover as possible. She questioned whether further removals could be made to reach 35%. Cooper commented that construction occurred over a four year period and that the current applicant has gone to great lengths to reduce hardcover substantially and still have good access to the property. Hawn asked how the retaining walls would be changed. Cooper stated that the walls would be pulled onto the property; however, as allowed at the last meeting, they would not meet a 5’ setback. Gaffron stated that minimal reductions would be gained with these removals and that the remaining pavement is necessary to ensure adequate turning radius and maneuverability. He pointed out that the applicant would like to keep the patios. Hawn and Bremer felt the applicant had done a good job faced with a diiTicuIt situation. Fritzlcr stated that he would insist the removals go further to meet the 35% as originally directed at the last meeting. Chair Smith concurred, stating that she saw no hardship to support the need for two driveways. PAGE 7 of 37 .* • I