My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-13-2003 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
10-13-2003 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/8/2023 3:02:48 PM
Creation date
2/8/2023 3:01:04 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
133
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, Sq>tember 22,2003 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />(6. «03-2936 BRUCE MEESE AND >UUREEN MURPHY, 3135 CASCO CIRCLE, <br />Coatiaued) <br />Gaffion reiterated that the applicants could be allowed a 32 s.f. landing and an additional 20 s.f. for <br />a lock box in lieu of the deck. <br />If it were determined that some kind of structural support were necessary to ensure the integrity of <br />the wall system, Moorse questioned what t>pe of support might be sufficient. <br />Kellogg suggested that the concrete itself could be reinforced or tiebacks could be used; however, <br />not seeing it for himself he was hesitant to make that recommendation. <br />Since in the absence of any definitive engineering expertise to say one way or another and since it <br />seems as if the combined wall and decking system is supporting this retaining wall structuar, <br />Murphy stated that he would not be willing to risk mandating the removal of the decking only to <br />see the wall crumble below. <br />Ms. Murphy pointed out that during their last visit before Council she had suggested the City <br />Engineer visit the site and make a recommendation: however, was told by City Attorney Barrett <br />that the City Engineer should not make a ruling on this either, to ensure the City is not liable for the <br />ruling. <br />Murphy maintained that the applicants had done what the City Council had asked them to do, <br />attempt to obtain a ruling from a reputable engineering Hrm. Although the results were <br />inconclusive, Murphy indicated that he was not willing to risk tearing out the decking screwed to <br />the retaining wall if the wall were jeopardized in the process. He felt this alone constituted <br />adequate hardship. <br />White concurred. <br />Sansevere asked Kellogg whether he believed other testing or investigation was warranted. <br />Kellogg stated that other testing techniques could potentially be done, though some are rather <br />destructive, others are not. He felt that it was difficult to determine what could further be done not <br />having seen the system himself. <br />Murphy moved. White seconded, to grant a hardcover variance in the 0-75* setback zone to <br />aliow 6% hardcover consisting of an existing lakeside deck, where 0% is typically allowed, <br />subject to the removal of the deck skirting, planting of an appropriate vegetative screen, and <br />the condition that if the deck should deteriorate to such a degree that It must be rebuilt it <br />cannot be replaced on the property at 3135 Casco Circle, <br />Sansevere asked Kellogg if he believed the physical testing required would require the deck to be <br />pulled off in the first place to test. <br />Pages of 16
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.