Resolution 2292 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Cit� o� ORONO • • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL � �� NO. 2292 � ' • - • • 17. D & R Construction, the general contractor, was continuously under pressure to meet the Parade of Homes deadline in September. The advertising benefits by the contractor's participation in the Parade of Homes are obvious not to mention the monetary rewards for both the contractor and owner. Staff found it difficult to obtain customary information associated with the building process. � 18. The revised survey dated 5/8/87 later submitted to the City as part of the building permit application showed no other improvements to the site that would suggest the need for grading plans or future structures such as retaining walls within the surrounding yard area. 19. In consideration of the recent Land Use Application No. 1129 and the information submitted with the building permit, the Building & Zoning staf f as weI 1 as the City Counci 1 were not made aware of any plans to alter the existing elevations of the property. • 20. On June 5 and June 11, 1987, the Building 'staff conducted footing inspections for the new structure and noted nothing unusual about the excavations to the outside of the footing structure. Excavations to the _exterior of the footing structure can range from 5 feet to 10 feet depending on the proposed height of the masonry/foundation wall to be instaYled above concrete footings. The next required inspection would be to inspect the framing. � 21. On July 2, 1987, the City received word from a concerned neighbor of excavations within the lakeshore yard of the property. The Orono staff immediately inspected the site and issued a Stop Work Order and advised the contractor of the violations. The inspection staff was not call.ed to the site to conduct a required inspection for framing until August 10, 1987. � 22. Sometime in the later part of August, the plumbing contractor, Robinson Construction Company, Inc., re-routed the municipal sewer lines prior to the City's approval of the engineering plans (as, required by conditions of Resolution No. 2172) and without the necessary permits. The first installation was done incorrectly and had to be re-done by the contractor. 23. In September of 1987, the City Staff was advised that the principal structure was placed over the private water service line that serves the residence to the south of the property. • 24. On July 10, 1987, the applicants filed for an after-the-fact conditional use permit and variances application seeking approval of the following: � Page 6 of 13