Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, June 17,2002 <br />6:30 o*clock p.in. <br />agreed with removing item #6. <br />Berg concurred. <br />Bremer stated that it was unfortunate that the applicant would need to destroy the work he had done; <br />however, he had created this for himself. <br />Bellows agreed with Fritzler and struck item U6. <br />Mr. Stephenson stated that had he known the neighbors would need to apply for the permits themselves, <br />he would have had them do so. <br />Smith asked staff if anything could be done to minimize the disruption to the neighborhood. <br />Bellows pointed out that none of this disruption would have had to occur if the applicant w ould have <br />followed the letter of the law right from the start. <br />(#02-2793 REVIS STEPHENSON ID, Continued) <br />Weinberger stated that, in the applicants defense, he had asked for neighbor consent to the co- <br />application. <br />Mr. Stephenson expressed his disappointment and referred to the Orono Mission Statement which he felt <br />encouraged the City to do what's best for the environment and the majority of its citizens support. He <br />stated that he did not mean to create this mess and could pull the overflow fill out of the wetland buffer <br />rather readily and reseed at his expense. Mr. Stephenson maintained that it did not make sense for the <br />City to order him to do something to the neighbors property now after they have recommended their <br />support of the project. <br />Berg stated that the project needs to revert to what was originally approved. What he has done was not <br />part of the original plan, and therefore needs to be removed. Even if the neighbors love what he has <br />PAGE 22 OF 42 <br />lar—JT.. lArM.Jj