My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-09-2026 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting
Orono
>
City Council
>
2026
>
03-09-2026 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/12/2026 3:57:41 PM
Creation date
3/12/2026 3:57:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Administration
Admin Doc Type
Agenda Packet City Council
Section
City Council
Subject
regular meeting
Document Date
3/9/2026
Retention
After
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
89
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
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />CITY OF ORONO <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> <br />NO. 7670 <br /> <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br /> <br />CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS: <br /> <br />Section 6.12.6240 (5)(c) states that walls in the shore setback zone shall require a <br />conditional use permit. New walls and replacement walls greater than 4 feet in height must <br />meet the following conditions. The wall must be: <br /> <br />B13. Designed to correct an established erosion problem; the Applicant provided a <br />professional opinion from a professional engineer, which stated that the retaining walls <br />eliminated a steeply sloped eroded area that was difficult to maintain and provided <br />additional storm runoff retention over the flatter planted areas they created. The walls <br />were also designed to preserve mature trees. While this narrative supports a functional <br />and aesthetic benefit, the ordinance standard is evidentiary and retrospective in nature. <br />The term “established erosion problem” implies the presence of documented, pre- <br />existing erosion conditions prior to construction activity. The record does not contain <br />objective documentation demonstrating that a documented erosion condition existed <br />prior to the Applicant’s intervention. Instead, the engineer’s statement characterizes the <br />area as “steeply sloped” and “difficult to maintain,” which does not, in itself, establish <br />active or ongoing erosion as contemplated by the ordinance. Accordingly, because the <br />evidentiary record does not substantiate that the walls were constructed to correct a <br />previously existing and demonstrable erosion problem, this criterion has not been met, <br />and <br /> <br />B14. Suitable given the demonstrated need; the engineer’s letter further states that the <br />walls provide stability to the slope, the trees, and help to reduce erosion. The engineer <br />also indicates that the construction of the walls and associated grading improves <br />stormwater runoff and increases opportunities for infiltration. This criterion has been <br />met, and <br /> <br />B15. Designed by a registered engineer or landscape architect, depending on the project <br />scope; Based on the professional engineering opinion that the slope required <br />stabilization and that the wall system functions to control runoff and improve infiltration, <br />the design appears proportionate and technically responsive to the site’s topographic <br />constraints. This criterion has been met, and <br /> <br />B16. Designed to be the minimum size necessary to control the erosion problem. The <br />documentation demonstrates professional involvement in evaluating the wall design and <br />construction relative to slope stability and drainage considerations. The requirement that <br />the wall be designed by a registered engineer or landscape architect has therefore been <br />satisfied. <br /> <br />67
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.