My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-25-1993 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1993
>
10-25-1993 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/23/2024 11:06:10 AM
Creation date
1/23/2024 11:03:05 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
280
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
TO: <br />FROM: <br />DATE: <br />SUBJECT: <br />Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers <br />Ron Moorse, City Administrator ^ f <br />Michael P. Gal Iron. Asst. Planninu & Zonins Administrator o' <br />#1884 Orville Fisher. 475 Oxford Road - After-the-Fact Variance <br />October 22, 1993 <br />Application <br />The property owner is required to make an after-the-fact application for variances to <br />Sections 10.22. Subdivision 3 and 10.56. Subdivision 16 (I) for removing live trees greater than <br />6" in diameter within 75’ of the shoreline, and for an approved "intensive vegetation clearing" <br />witliin 75’ of the shoreline. <br />List of Exhibits <br />A - Revised Restoration Proposal <br />B - letter from Land.scape Designer <br />C - Memo and Exhibits of 10/15/93 <br />Summary <br />Twelve 6" or larger live trees and literally dozens of smaller trees ranging from 1" to <br />6" in diameter were found to have been removed in the 0-75’ lakeshore setback zone, leaving <br />no woody vegetation save for three 24" to 30" hardwoods. Additional trees were removed just <br />outside the 0-75’ zone. The tree cutting and intensive vegetation clearing is a clear violation of <br />two separate code sections. <br />Please review the staff memo of October 15, 1993. <br />Planning Conmiission Review <br />The Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 18th. Statt required that <br />an after-the-fact variance application be filed, and recommended that the variances be denied and <br />that restoration be requ .'ed. I he D.NR concurs with this recommendation but in their letter <br />provided little direction for mitigation of the damage. <br />I'he Planning Commission ’s review and questioning of the applicant established that a <br />college student had been hired and apparently given general direction to not cut trees within 75’ <br />of the lake, however the property owner acknowledges that he is ultimately responsible tor this <br />activity on his property.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.