Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 <br />2rty. <br />de <br />lining <br />jired <br />tales <br />^ and <br />75 feet <br />ifinite <br />iction <br />ing <br />(fr2540 Bradley Hoyt, Continued) <br />required for the construction of the retaining wall. <br />Weinberger noted that regardless of the conditions that existed for the regrading of the property <br />demonstrated by the two property surveys, after-the-fact permits are still required on the property to <br />bring the property into conformance with the City's Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. <br />City Staff is recommending the application for a conditional use permit be denied based on the <br />adverse impacts of hardcover within the shoreland area as well as the lack of an application by the <br />Applicant for variances. However, in discussions held with legal counsel for the Applicant today, <br />Mr. Sheridan has indicated that they would be willing to apply for variances, but based upon the <br />application before the Planning Commission tonight, City Staff is recommending denial of the <br />application. A recommendation of denial is also based upon the findings within the Comprehensive <br />Plan and the fact that variances are required in this case, noting that the conditional use permit <br />cannot be granted since it is in violation of the regulations governing this application. <br />Weinberger stated a second alternative available to the Applicant would be to request that this <br />application be tabled to enable City Staff to meet with the Applicant's representatives and to allow <br />the Applicant time to submit a revised and complete application. Weinberger reiterated that this <br />application deals only with the construction of the retaining wall. <br />Richard Sheridan. Attorney-at-Law, commented that the language included in the Planner's Report <br />stating that the Applicant was informed by City Staff that the property can be restored or he can <br />file an after-the-fact permit is the Trsl time they have seen anything in writing by City Staff that the <br />Applicant is able to restore the property. Sheridan remarked that restoration of the property was <br />raised in connection with some litigation regarding this matter. <br />Sheridan staled a conclusion is being drawn by City Staff that substantial grading has occurred on <br />the property based on a 1990 survey and a 1999 survey. Sheridan stated to his knowledge Staff <br />has not viewed the property to make that determination. The property was acquired by Mr. Hoyt in <br />late 1996 or early 1997, with the residence being constructed in 1990 or thereabouts. The most <br />recent survey indicates the slope has been regraded creating a flat area on the lakeside of the <br />boulder retaining wall, and the shoreline has been filled to extend into the rip rap approximately <br />five to ten feet into the lake. An issue of contention in this matter is whether Mr. Hoyt actually <br />placed the rip rap into the lake, which is being adamantly denied by the Applicant during his <br />ownership of the property. Sheridan commented that these changes to the shoreline could have <br />been undertaken prior to his purchase of the property, and the Applicant is objecting to any <br />conclusion that grading work has occurred within 75 feet of the lakeshore during his ownership of <br />the property. <br />Sheridan stated that some of the ordinances that City Staff is contending the Applicant has violated <br />did not become effective or were not modified until the late or mid 90s, and that the conclusion being <br />drawn by City Staff is.incorrect as it relates to Mr. Hoyt undertaking the grading work. <br />As it relates to the three variances that City Staff has indicated are required. Sheridan stated in his <br />view only one variance is actually required since they all deal with the 75' setback. Sheridan stated <br />that the first lime they were informed of the need for a variance is when they received the legal <br />notice from the City that their application was for a conditional use permit and variances. Sheridan <br />indicated that the Applicant is willing to apply for after-the-fact variances at this time, noting that <br />Weinberger indicated that he did have sufficient information to file an application in their discussion <br />earlier today. <br />Page 6