07-22-2002 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

f' Mayor Barbara Peterson Orono City Council Page 5 July 15,2002 should reject the applications for the following more important substantive reasons; 1. The City will set a dangerous precedent if it approves Mr. Stephenson ’s applications. Mr. Stephenson violated the original CUP knowingly or with gross negligence. Rather than correcting his violations when cited in January and February, Mr. Stephenson proceeded with his work and with further violations. WTien the City cited Mr. Stephenson again in May, he came to the city with a request for after-the-fact approvals that will allow him to *. continue his violations forever. If the City approves Mr. Stephenson ’s applications the City will set a precedent that encourages landowners with potentially controversial projects to develop first and ask forgiveness later. Worse, the City may be setting a legal precedent that may require the City to grant after-the-fact approvals for projects the City would not have approved in the first place. 2. Mr. Stephenson ’s neighbors do not have the authority to forgive Mr. Stephenson ’s permit violations. Mr. Stephenson violated a CUP the City of Orono issued under laws designed to protect the environment and the interests of all citizens of the City of Orono. The City cannot delegate authority for enforcement of its laws to private individuals, especially not individuals who benefit from the violation of the law. 3. Mr. Stephenson ’s violations are material and long lasting. Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Munson have attempted to minimize the gravity of Mr. Stephenson ’s actions. Mr. Stephenson clear-cut approximately 6,500 square feet of trees and brush. As the attached photographs show, Mr. Stephenson left an unsightly pile of tree trunks and brush at the bottom of the hill, within the wetland setback. On information and belief, Mr. Stephenson buried the balance of the trees and brush under his hill. The photographs also show that Mr. Stephenson left a huge, unsightly hiunp of a hill where he had permission for a hill half as wide and 25% less steep. Mr. Stephenson and his neighbors do not object to this unsightly hump because they do not see it. CONCLUSION The City Council Should Deny the .Requested CUP Amendment and Variance and Should Order Strict Compliance with the Existing CUP Mr. Chalfen concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to deny the CUP amendment and the variance and offers the follow ing with respect to the staff recommendations; 1. With respect to the first staff recommendation, Mr. Chalfen agrees that the City Council should deny the request for a variance that will allow the Stephensons to encroach into the wetlands. To the extent compliance with the original CUP constitutes a hardship, the 2234S62v} ! JTiMf t