03-27-2000 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2540 Bradley Hoyt, Continued) Skolnick stated to his understanding it was constructed in 1998, with the issue being raised in April of 1999 relating to the boulder wall. Lindquist inquired how the City became aware of this matter. Skolnick stated the house was listed for sale, a buyer was interested in acquiring the property, an agreement was signed, and the realtor checked with the City on some items, with Mr. Vang maki ig some statements that resulted in the buyer cancelling the sale. An effort at that time was made to try to resolve this matter with the City, with Mr. Hoyt then being threatened with legal action, which has led to the application tonight. Lindquist stated if this matter appeared before the Planning Commission in June of 1998, he probably would have voted against the retaining wall at that time and would have liked to see other options pursue in an attempt to lessen the impact on the 0-75 ’ setback. Lindquist commented he is familiar with the area and that there have been a tremendous amount of changes made to the shoreline over the years. Chair Hawn commented in her view the Planning Commission is looking at a conditional use permit application after-the-fact, and the issues relating to the rip rap and land alteration is not before them tonight since the Applicant has not filed that application with the City. Hawn stated it is unclear whether the retaining wall was truly needed after the windstorm, noting that the Planning Commission has lost the opportunity to review the situation at the time the wall was constructed due to the lack of an application being filed by the Applicant. Hawn stated due to the loss of that opportunity, under Orono ’s ordinances, the Applicant needs to demonstrate the need for the retaining wall, which will be difficult at this time. Hawn stated absent a showing of need by the Applicant for the retaining wall, given Orono's ordinances and Comprehensive Plan, she would not have voted in favor of the retaining wall at the time it was constructed and is not in a position at this time to vote in favor of the after-the-fact. Kluth stated he was in agreement with Lindquist and Hawn regarding this issue, noting that a hardship has not been demonstrated by the Applicant. Kluth noted that in general the Planning Commission docs not look on this type of application favorably when it relates to land alteration v/ithin the 0-75' setback. Chair Hawn stated the Planning Commission will approve after-the-fact permits if they would have approved them in the first instance. Hawn commented there appears to be consensus among the Planning Commission that absent a showing of hardship, it is unlikely that the retaining wall would have been approved at the time it was constructed. Hawn stated as a matter of public policy, the City should not give a benefit to a property owner who does not comply with the City’s ordinances in the first place and then later approaches the City requesting after-the-fact variances. Hawn commented it is doubtful that this application would have been granted in the first instance. Berg commented that every community has ordinances regulating shorelines, noting that it has been well published in this area that Orono takes a very proactive approach to protecting the lakeshore. Berg inquired why the Applicant chose not to ask the City what steps need to be taken to address this issue before any work was commenced in the 0-75* setback, noting that an answer to this question has not been given tonight. Smith commented that some of the issues relate to work that has apparently occurred between the time of the two surveys. Smith inquired whether there were any neighbors or witnesses or tests Page 9