Laserfiche WebLink
MINITTESOFTHE <br />0RONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, Jane 17,2002 <br />6:30 o'clock p jd. <br />Weinberger repeated that the City protects wetlands within 26’ thus ensuring that citizens do not disturb <br />the wetland. <br />Mr. Stephenson stated that MCWD had indicated to him that permits are available which allow fill back <br />to a wetland as long as the natural buffer U restored, much like the golf course had done. <br />Since ihe variances Mr. Stephenson referred to were never obtained, Mr. Galatz repeated that the <br />hardship was his own doing and the edge of the ridge must be moved back. <br />(#02-2793 REVIS STEPHENSON m, Contiaucd) <br />With regard to the neighboring properties, GafGron stated tfuit each will need to apply for their own <br />permit to have the fill remain, Mr. Stephenson cannot apply for permits on behalf of his neighbors. <br />Bremer questioned whether the letters and correspondence that have been received are enough to satisfy <br />issue #3 for the City. ' <br />Bellows maintained that no letter can suffice to support the CUP. <br />* Fritzler voiced his opinion, stating that the crest of the hill needs to be backed up to what was originally <br />approved in the CUP. Too much has been done and it is on the onus of Mr. Stephenson to correct the <br />problem. Frtizler maintained that the integrity of the 26’ wetland setback needs to be restored. He added <br />that, in his opinion, he would vote to deny the variance, deny the CUP, and require the applicant to move <br />the slope back.. <br />Bc.llo^ requested that item #6 of the conditions on page 4 of the report be stricken since die nei^bors <br />are not co-applicants in diis request <br />Smith stated that she concurred with the thoughts laid out by Fritzliir. <br />Rahn indicated that in bis view the applicant had been negligent of what was originally approved and <br />PAGE 21 OF 42 <br />MlHk III I