07-22-2002 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Orono Planning Commission Pages June 13,2002 woilc violated the wetland setback condition in the CUP and jeopardized the natural resources that the silt fencing and setback requirements were intended to protect. 4. The All imported by the Stephensons is clearly more voluminous than what is permitted in the CUP. Mr. Weinberger’s report (including the attached cross section diagram) is entirely consistent with what Mr. Chalfen has observed, as recorded in his aflidavit. The current grade profile creates a much bulkier hillside throughout the cross-section profile ^ than what was approved by the City. Therefore, it is almost certain that the Stephensons violated the volumetric limit for imported fill established in the CUP. See also item eight, below. 5. The record also demonstrates that the contours created by the Stephensons are much higher than the accepted contours as originally proposed by the Stephensons. Both Mr. Weinberger’s report and Mr. Chalfen ’s affidavit and the attached photographs show that the relatively flat grade at the back of the Stephenson ’s house now extends out an additional thirty-eight feet from where the pre-existing grade began its steep descent toward the back of their lot. 'This extended “table ” of new fill is very noticeable in various enclosed photographs, and as the cross-section diagram attached to Mr. Weinberger’s report shows, this feature has caused a significant departure from the accepted contours in the Stephensons ’ opginal plans. The resulting landscape is imnatural in appear;>nGe and impairs the view shed from Mr. Chalfen ’s property. Fuithcr, the extended “tabte ” grade has, naturally, caused the remaining Glope to be steeper than the recommended three to one grade, de~pite the fact that the Stephensons extended the foot of the hill mto the wetland buffer. 6. *rhe record shows that the Stephensons have violated the twenty-six foot wetland setback by placing fill within the buffer zone. When that fill is removed, as it should be, it will be necessary to re-grade the remaining hillside to maintain compliance with the slope guidelines. 7. Although they did not identify it in their plans submitted with the CUP application, the Stephensons have added a sloped driveway area on the north side of their house. This slope was apparently created using imported fill and was used to enable heavy equipment access to the Stephensons ’ back yard. The creation of this slope is clearly a part of the overall filling and grading project and therefore the fill contained in that slope should be included in the calculation of total fill volume for the project and it should be removed following completion of back yard fill removal and re-grading as the City may require. 8. The Stephensons have inexplicably broadened the area of fill not just beyond the side yard setbacks that were incorporated into the original contour plan, but well beyond their side lot lines into adjacent properties! Fill in these areas, depicted in an overhead-view diagram attached to Mr. Weinberger’s report, was completely unauthorized by the City and further contributes to the inescapable conclusion that the amount of fill brought in b} the Stephensons far exceeds the volume approved by the City. Though it is not clear 222<42Svl L