01-19-2000 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 NEW BUSINESS (#6) #2540 BRADLEY HOYT, 2523 KELLY AVENUE - AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMITA/ARIANCE, 7:03 p.m. -7:58 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Richard Sheridan, Attomey-at-Law, and William Skolnick, Attomey-at-Law, were present. Bradley Hoyt, Applicant, was not present. Weinberger stated the Applicant has filed a general land use application for aii after-the-fact conditional use permit, which also requires variances for hardcover. The application is a result of a request by the City of Orono to allow the property to comply with Code requirements and have the necessary permits issued. The application deals with the construction of boulder retaining walls within the 0-75’ lakeshore setback but not with any lakeshore land alteration that may have occurred on the property. City Staff has Indicated to the Applicant that the property can be restored or an application for after-the-fact permits can be filed with the City. The Applicant has chosen to apply for the nece^ry permits for any work that has been completed on the property. The Applicant has Indicated he Is unaware of any lakeshore land alteration that may have occurred on the property. However, it is the belief of Staff that some land alteration may have occurred with the construction of the retaining walls. The Applicant has stated he did construct a retaining wall in a letter dated October 29,1999, which is attached to this report, but denies doing any land alteration work within the 75 foot lakeshore setback. The property surveys indicate that substantial regarding has occurred on the property within 75 feet of the lakeshore. Typically this would be considered extensive grading within the 0-75 setback since It is Staffs belief that more than 10 cubic yards of fill have been moved in this area. Weinberger noted that the only application that has been filed by the Applicant Is for the retain!^ walls. The land alteration work is not a part of this application. Mr. Hoyt acquired this property In approximately 1996 or 1997. Weinberger stated that It is City Staffs position that Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19, has been violated, v^ich states that It is unlawful for any person to perform or have performed the following land alteration activities without a conditional use permit issued by the Council: C. Build, alter, or repair any seawall, retaining wall, or otherwise change the grade or shore of lakeshore pro^fty, which would require the issuance of a conditional use permit. A conditional use permit can be granted In this case if the proposal meets all the other sections of the zoning code. Weinberger stated, however, this proposal would not meet the other sections of the zoning code since the retaining walls would constitute hardcover within 75 feet of the lakeshore. If the retai^g wall had been constructed outside the 0-75' setback, a conditional use permit may not be required and would be subject to other restrictions. Weinberger stated a variance would be required under Section 10.55, Subdivision 8, which states that no filling, grading, dredging, excavation, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures, obstructions, septic systems, well or other construction shall be allowed within the Flood Plain aM Wetlands Conservation Area; nor on any lands within 26 feet thereof; nor on any land within of the ordinancy highwater elevation of any lake shoreline. In order to grant a variance, a definite hardship must be demonstrated by the Applicant. In addition, variances to permit the construction of the retaining wall would also fall under Section 10.22, Subdivision 2, and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(L), for a total of three variances being Page 5