07-08-2002 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Orono Planning Commission Page 2 June 13,2002 about the cost of correcting the conditions that the City fully recognizes that the Stephensons have created the problem for themselves. The Stephensons started clear cutting trees and importing fill before any silt fencing was installed, in clear violation of the CUP. The Stephensons were ordered to stop work on their filling and grading project in early January following an inspection by Minnehaha Creek Wate[shed District (Watershed District) that disclosed violations of the erosion control plan for the project. Undaunted by Watershed District Order, the Stephensons have continued their work, which has included, among other things: (1) further heavy equipment use and other prohibited work in the wetland setback (and, in some cases, within the delineated wetland itself); (2) planting of grass and trees after receiving notices from the City that City staff had concluded that portions of the fill material the Stephensons had imported would have to be removed or re graded; and (3) the addition of steps leading from an expanded back deck to tiie existing (altered) grade in the back yard. From these facts alone, it is obvious that the Stephensons intend to complete the project however it is they see fit, whether or not that is consistent with the terms and conditions imposed on them by the (ility or the Watershed District. Mr. Weinberger’s June 2002 report to the Planning Commission provides further evidence that the Stephensons have acted without regard to the original plan they submitted to the City. Among other things, Mr. Weinberger reports that the Stephensons have added nearly 40 feet to their back lawn area (that is the flat part of their yard near to the back of the house) through their unauthorized grading and filling project. As a result, the Stephensons have more than doubled the size of their usable back lawn area, while leaving a steep grade (that is, less than three to one) down toward the wetland at the back of their lot. The result is completely at odds with the Stephensons ’ earlier claim that they wanted to create a more level grade throughout the back yard to make it safer for their children. The Actions Taken by the Stephensons Violate the CUP The record demonstrates that the Stephensons have breached the terms and conditions of their existing CUP and the erosion control plan in the several material ways enumerated below: 1. Required silt fencing was not installed before filling work commenced, leading to unnecessary risk of erosion and sedimentation to the nearby wetland. 2. The silt fencing that was installed was not a double fence as the CUP required. 3. Even after the inadequate silt fencing was put in place, the Stephensons continued to perform work in the wetland setback area. As the Mr. Chalfen’s testimony and the photographic exhibits vividly demonstrate, the Stephensons moved mechanical equipment extensively in the wetland buffer area after the silt fencing was installed. This 2226t2ivl ,wff I !