Laserfiche WebLink
VINUTI:S OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCII. MEETING t1ELD NOVEMBER 9, 1987 <br />s1177 TODD WATERS <br />,61 CASCO POINT ROAD <br />CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/ <br />VARIANCES <br />DENIAL RESOLUTION 12292 <br />Torld waters and his attorney David Davenport were <br />present for this: matter. <br />City Auministrator Hernhar0son explained that Council <br />directed staff at their last meeting to draft a <br />resolution denying an after -the -fact conditional use <br />permit and variances and ordering the applicant to <br />restore the Lakeshore yard to the original condition. <br />Staff has submitted this denial resolution for Council <br />consideration, noting that the deadline for restoration <br />is June 15, 1988. <br />Zoning Administrator f-;:.busth r.evie. ed the pertinent <br />points within the: denial resolution. <br />Attorney David Davenport stated that tile'y obviously did <br />not agree with the findings of the denial resolution <br />feeling that they have: not been supporte,? by the <br />evidence that had been presented to the Planning <br />Commission and Council. Referring t, Finding #15, he <br />noted that it is their intention to provide the easement <br />document. He requested clarification of Finding f26b <br />stating that it was their understanding that the intent <br />of the resolution was to require completes: restoration <br />of the site to its original condition which would <br />involve reinstallation of the small drainage the that <br />Existed prior to construction. It is his understanding <br />that Engineer Cook may be recommending that an 18" pipe <br />be instal led and if this is the care, it is inconsistent <br />with the finding made by Council at the last review that <br />the property be restored to its original ccndition. <br />Therefore, they object on the basis that they are <br />requiring the Waters' to solve the ponding or inundation <br />problem that is not their responsibility to solve. <br />City Engineer Cook clarified t:sat restoration to the <br />original condition woe ld involve reinstallation of an 6" <br />pipe, however it would not change the previous <br />conditions which involved the pondin-1 area. <br />Attorney Davenport explained that the 6" pipe would not <br />solve the past and currer;t drainage problem. <br />Counci lmerber Callahan objected to the references made <br />in the resolution that Council "conceptually" denies the <br />request and that staff, consultants, and applicants <br />should work together to decide what size pipe should be <br />inst.AIIfnd. tit' viewctri they :.fter-the-fact conditional use <br />