07-08-2002 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

( • Orono Planning Conunission Pages June 13,2002 Together, the facts in the record reveal that work performed by the Stephensons has caused environmental impairment, pollution and destruction and, unless remedied, is likely to cause further adverse impacts in the future. Reasonable, prudent alternatives have been and are available—i.e., following the conditions in the CUP would have prevented potential adverse impacts to natural resources and strict compliance with CUP conditions moving forward (by, for e.xample, removing excess fill and adhering to the contour scheme approved in the CUP) will help prevent future impacts. Even if the Stephensons complain that adherence to the conditions of their permit will cause financial expenses, the City should not be influenced by the claims, as financial considerations alone cannot justify the Stephensons ’ requests. The Planning Commission Should Recommend Denial of the Requested CUP Amendment and Variance and Should Recommend an Order Requiring Strict Compliance with the Existing CUP Mr. Chalfen concurs in most significant respects with the conclusions and recommendations contained in Mr. Weinberger ’s report to the Platming Commission. With respect to the first staff recommendation, Mr. Chalfen agrees that the fill must be removed from the wetland buffer area and the soils in that area must be decompacted. Mr. Chalfen believes that, to the extent possible, pre-existing vegetation in the buffer area and in the wetland itself should be restored. With respect to the second staff recommendation, Mr. Chalfen agrees that the slope of the filled grade must not exceed the recommended three to one slope and that the foot of the slope must be removed from the twenty-six foot wetland setback. In addition, Mr. Chalfen would like to see some clarification in the record that this steepness of the slope must not be exceeded along any radius extending from the pre-existing back lawn area of the house. Thus, if the Stephensons are required, as they should be, to remove all fill extending beyond the side lot setbacks, they should be required to remove and re-grade the remaining fill as may be required to ensure that the slope extending along the edges of the permitted fill areas does not exceed the recommended slope. Finally, with respect to the third staff recommendation, Mr. Chalfen believes that the only conclusion is that the fill must be removed from the adjacent properties and from the side yard set back areas within the Stephensons ’ property. Mr. Chalfen therefore disagrees with the staff suggestion that the Plaiming Commission may accept “the consent ’’ of the neighboring property owners as effectively authorizing amendment to the Stephensons ’ CUP.' ' To the extent that the adjacent property owners fail to consent to the addition of flit to their property, Mr. Chalfen agrees with the conclusion of the staff that the fill in question should be removed. However, as explained in the 222fr428vl ----