03-27-2000 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2540 Bradley Hoyt, Continued) Sheridan requested that the Planning Commission consider the application before them tonight. Skolnick commented that the Applicant has found himself involved in litigation with the City and being threatened with criminal action concerning this boulder retaining wall when there is no basis in fact for it, with a potential sale of tlie residence being lost. Skolnick stated that most of the information is inaccurate; such as, placement of rip rap in the lake. The Applicant denies placing any rip rap in the lake. Chair Hawn remarked that the rip rap is not an issue before the Planning Commission tonight. Skolnick stated the Applicant is also denying doing any grading in the 0-75* setback. Due to the windstorms approximately a year and a half ago, some trees were blown down and removed, with some boulders being placed in the area to prevent erosion. Skolnick commented that that 1990 survey does not depict the concrete wall which has been in existence for 30 or 40 years on the property. Skolnick commented a survey should be obtained showing the topography of the land just prior to Hoyt’s purchase of the property. Skolnick stated the Applicant is attempting to work with the City by filing an application for a variance. Skolnick noted that the Applicant was not informed that the application is incomplete until recently. The matter before the Planning Commission tonight deals with an after-the-fact variance for the boulder retaining wall. In regards to the Comprehensive Plan as the basis for denial, Skolnick remarked that the Applicant has complied with the Comprehensive Plan. An expert hired by the Applicant has found that the retaining wall has been constructed to industry standards and does not present any issues relating to water drainage or runoff into the lake. Skolnick indicated that the Applicant is willing to continue to work with the City on this matter, noting that they are willing to submit additional paperwork if needed, but that they are objecting to any decision that is made on inaccurate information. Skolnick stated he has not heard anything tonight which would prevent the Planning Commission from granting the after-the-fact variance except for the lack of some forms being submitted by the Applicant. Sheridan expressed a concern with the 1990 survey being the recorded topography of the property, noting that he is unsure what that means, and would not like the decision of the Planning Commission to be based solely on that survey. Sheridan commented regarding the hardcover in the 0-75 ’ setback, a stairway previously existed in that area, which are allowed in the area. Sheridan stated that the amount of hardcover in this area has not changed significantly and questioned whether rocks should be counted as hardcover. Skolnick stated as it relates to an adverse impact on the shoreline or hardcover, the boulder retaining wall does not present an adverse on the shoreline, the water, or the hardcover. With the removal of the stairway, the hardcover in this area has been diminished. There were no public comments regarding this application. Kluth inquired about the nature of the litigation that relates to this property. Skolnick stated that there is presently a lawsuit filed in federal court relating to defammation of the Applicant as well as the loss of the sale of the residence. The parties are currently in the process of discovery in that lav/suit. Page 7