My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-22-2002 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
07-22-2002 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2023 10:16:23 AM
Creation date
2/9/2023 9:37:55 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
555
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MONDAY, JULY 8,2002 <br />6. #02-2793 Revis Stephenson^ 1850 Fox Ridge Road—Afier-the-Fact Conditional <br />Use Permit and Variances—Continued <br />growing there where sage meadow would have been originally. Murphy asked how much <br />shrinkage had occurred to the wetland. Peterson stated he wasn’t sure at this time. <br />Sansevere stated he was in favor of giving them time to gather information. He asked <br />Stephenson if he had any recourse against his contractor. Stephenson stated he would be <br />pursuing action against the contractor. <br />St^henson stated he did not believe granting his variance to grade in the buffer zone <br />would be precedent setting. He found language in City documents stating that a buffer <br />zone is not wetland and as long as it is restored to perform as a buffer, grading could <br />occur. He stated that Spring Hill Golf Course had been allowed to grade extensively in <br />the buffer zone of a wetland. <br />Mayor Peterson asked if tabling the application would create an issue with the 60-day <br />deadline. Munson stated that if it did, they would grant an extension of the 60-day limit. <br />Eric Galatz, attorney representing Mr. Chafen at 350 Brown Road South, stated that he <br />objected to including changes for adjacent properties without requiring that they also <br />pursue permits for the changes. He claimed that not all residents who should have been <br />notified were. He stated that Stephenson was required to submit a professional survey, <br />and he hadn’t. He claimed all three properties involved should be reviewed. He added <br />that his letter was not intended to incite the Planning Commission. Galatz stated that <br />Stephenson had blatantly and intentionally violated the law, and damaged wetland by <br />running machinery on the wetland side of the silt fence. He urged the Council not to table <br />the application. He stated that Stephenson had been on notice since February and could <br />have stopped the contractor back then. He added that the small trees Stephenson had <br />planted would be easy to uproot. - <br />Toby Dayton of 1895 Fox Ridge Road stated that he was in support of the revised permit. <br />Throughout the process, he and Stephenson had had conversations about the fill and <br />Stephenson had always been communicative and careful to make sure that Dayton <br />approved of his action. He stated he favored allowing the land to remain as it currently is. <br />He took strong issue with Galatz terming Stephenson’s action as blatantly disregarding the <br />law. He stated that the drainage is much improved. He has 3 young children and the <br />previous slope was a hazard. <br />Mayor Peterson stated to Galatz that no amount of trees would stop Council fix>m <br />pursuing appropriate action. She asked if new surveys found discrepancies in the <br />delineation, would the application go back to the Planning Commission? Weinberger <br />stated it would depend on the findings, especially since time was of issue and there was <br />need for a resolution. Barrett stated that the application would only need to return to the
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.