Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 <br />(#2540 Bradley Hoyt, Continued) <br />Sheridan requested that the Planning Commission consider the application before them tonight. <br />Skolnick commented that the Applicant has found himself involved in litigation with <br />being threatened with criminal action concerning this boulder retaining wall '1?f®®'* <br />in fact for it, with a potential sale of the residence being lost. Skolnick stated that most of the <br />information is inaccurate; such as. placement of rip rap In the lake. The Applicant denies placing <br />any rip rap in the take. <br />Chair Hawn remarked that the rip rap is not an issue before the Planning Commission tonight. <br />Skolnick stated the Applicant is also denying doing any grading in the 0-75 ’ setbac^. Due I® <br />windstorms approximately a year and a half ago, some trees were blown <br />some boulders being placed In the area to prevent erosion. Skolnick wmmented that thallSTO <br />survey does not depict the concrete wall which has been In existence for 30 or 40 yea <br />property. Skolnick commented a survey should be obtained showing the topography of the land <br />just prior to Hoyt's purchase of the property. <br />Skolnick stated the Applicant is attempting to work with the City by filing <br />variance. Skolnick noted that the Applicant was not inforrned that the application is <br />recently. The matter be' )re the Planning Commission tonight deals with an after-the-fact vartan <br />for the boulder retaining wail. <br />In *2gards to the Comprehensive Plan as the basis for denial. Skolnick remarlted that <br />his complied with the Comprehensive Plan. An expert hired by the Applicant has <br />re:aining wall has been constructed to industry standards and does not present any issues g <br />to v/ater drainage or runoff into the lake. <br />Skolnick Indicated that the Applicant is willing to continue to work with the City on this 'J?W®[* <br />noting that they are willing to submit additional paperwork if needed, but that *^®y <br />any decision that is made on inaccurate information. Skolnick stated he has not hea^ <br />tonight which would prevent the Planning Commission from granting the after-the-fact vanance <br />except for the lack of some forms being submitted by the Applicant. <br />Sheridan expressed a concern with the 1990 survey being the recorded P^®P®'^y* <br />noting that he is unsure what that means, and would not like the decision ♦Ifi'hLiSrAuor in <br />Commission to be based solely on that survey. Sheridan comrnented regarding th eh«ridan <br />the 0-75 ’ setback, a stairway previously existed In that area, which are allowed ^® , ‘ . <br />stated that the amount of hardcover in this area has not changed significantly and questioned <br />whether rocks should be counted as hardcover. <br />Skolnick stated as it relates to an adverse impact on the shoreline or <br />retaining wall does not present an adverse on the shoreline, the water, or the hardcover. With the <br />removal of the stairway, the hardcover In this area has been diminished. <br />There were no public comments regarding this application. <br />Kluth inquired about the nature of the litigation that relates to this property. <br />Skolnick stated that there is presently a lawsuit filed In federal court relating to <br />the Applicant as well as the loss of the sale of the residence. The parties are currently in tne <br />process of discovery in that lawsuit. <br />Page 7