Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,June 17,2002 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#02-2793 REVIS STEPHENSON III,Continued) <br /> encouraged the Commission to require that the applicant restore the landscape. In fact,Mr. Galatz stated, <br /> the applicant has not made any apologies to his neighbors or the City for his indiscretions. <br /> Mr. Stephenson asked to respond to each of Mr. Chalfen's issues independently. First,with regard to the <br /> driveway and deck,Mr. Stephenson stated that he had received a permit for the deck and has not changed <br /> his driveway in any way. Second,he indicated that he is apologetic to both his neighbors and the City. <br /> He questioned the need to file permit for his neighbors overflow fill amounts which are less than 100 <br /> cubic feet of fill therefore not requiring permit. Finally,Mr. Stephenson stated that he disagreed with the <br /> view issues as put forth by the neighbor due to his proximity to the property. <br /> Bellows questioned if Weinberger could provide the Commission with a survey of existing conditions <br /> since the completion of the work. <br /> Gaffron noted that by comparing Exhibits B and D this is displayed well. <br /> Bellows felt that the two exhibits were dramatically different and asked if it would be possible to <br /> quantify the amount of extra fill that was used. <br /> Smith inquired about the typical amount of settling one can expect. <br /> Weinberger stated that over a short period of time a little settling is somewhat common. <br /> Bellows reminded the Commission and applicant that the quantity of fill that is approved is for an <br /> amount only,not that which is needed to maintain a certain level after settling. <br /> Mr. Galatz stated that by extending the ridge out 38 feet, Mr. Chalfen's side hill view is now blocked by <br /> an 8 foot tall filled in hill, which obstructs his view to the woods beyond. <br /> Rahn felt it would be pertinent to obtain the City Engineer's opinion before making judgment and <br /> believed that when an applicant goes way beyond what has been permitted,there are additional issues to <br /> consider. <br /> Mr. Galatz urged the Commission to take action now since Mr. Stephenson has already been on notice <br /> for six months. <br /> Rahn expressed his empathy to the neighbors who would be subject to a new series of trucks disrupting <br /> their lives this summer, who, of course, feel it is an easier course of action to let it all go. <br /> Smith asked for Mr. Stephenson's feedback regarding page 3, of the staff recommendations. <br /> Mr. Stephenson stated that item#3 of page 3 had been addressed by providing adjacent property owner <br /> support. Item#2,with regard to the grade,Mr. Stephenson maintained that the 2.9 grade is extremely <br /> close to the 3:1 slope that was approved and should be allowed. In reference to item#1, wetland <br /> encroachment, Mr. Stephenson stated that he would be more than happy to remove the fill that had <br /> overflowed into the wetland area without having to shave the whole hill back. <br /> PAGE 13 OF 29 <br />