Laserfiche WebLink
application was sent to Mr. Hoyt on October 8, 1999 requesting some additional information, <br />including an updated survey and information regarding the condition of the property prior to <br />construction of a retaining wall. On October 29,1999 an updated survey was delivered to the City <br />which determined the new retaining (boulder) wall was in fact within 75’ of the lakeshore. Staff had <br />indicated to Mr. Hoyt that variances would be required for hardcover within the 75' setback. Mr. <br />Hoyt and his representative Rick Sheridan again stated no information was available regarding grade <br />changes that likely occurred during construction of the boulder retaining walls. <br />The Planning Commission reviewed the conditional use permit and Code requirements for granting <br />the conditional use permit. They determined for approval of a conditional use permit variances must <br />be applied for, no approval can be granted without variances. Staff had notified the applicant <br />variances are required for hardcover within the 75' lakeshore setback. Based on no application for <br />variances the Planning Commission could not properly make a recommendation on the variances or <br />undue hardship to support the granting of a variance. Therefore they could not conclude that the <br />CUP could be granted because the retaining wall did not conform with City Code. <br />The Planning Commission did offer the applicant an opportunity to revise the conditional use permit <br />application to include variances. The Planning Commission also had requested additional <br />information about the property, to include photos and other property information. Mr. Hoyt’s <br />representatives stated it is there position to resolve this matter without any delays. The Planning <br />Commission, based on the statements made by Mr. Sheridan to move the application forward, did <br />not table the request but chose to recommend denial. <br />Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 permits a CUP to build, alter, or repair any seawall, retaining wall, <br />or otherwise change the grade or shore of lakeshore property' if the w’ork meets all other requirements <br />of the Code. <br />Mr. Hoyt has stated he did construct a retaining wall in his letter dated October 29, 1999 attached <br />to this report, but also stated he had not regraded within the 75' lakeshore setback. The property- <br />surveys indicate regrading has occurred on the property below' the retaining wall. Mr. Hoyl has <br />refused to apply for conditional use permits for the regrading on the property'. <br />The most recent survey indicates the slope has been regraded creating a flat area on the lakeside of <br />the boulder retaining wall, and the shoreline has been filled to extend into the rip rap approximately <br />5-10 feet into the lake. The surveys indicate the 929.4' shoreline has been extended into the lake. <br />.Attached (Exhibit I) Mr. Rick Sheridan, in his letter dated October 1,1999 has stated "Bradley Hoyt <br />makes this request for an After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit based upon the request of the City <br />of Orono and its attorneys, Greene & Espel, P.L.L.P". <br />The application is only for retaining walls within 75' of the lakeshore. No other application has been <br />received for any additional land alteration or variances for hardcover. <br />Based on the surveys the follow ing is a list of the ordinances which we believe have been violated <br />when grading and retaining wall work was done.