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 /> Fritzler questioned if the applicants crew was running equipment beyond the silt fencing and why. <br /> Mr. Stephenson indicated that small machinery had been used. <br /> Fritzler then asked how far into the wetland the applicants property extends and what he removed. <br /> Mr. Stephenson stated that his property extends 100' into the wetland and that he removed much of the <br /> buckthorn at his own expense. <br /> Smith referred to page 4,the remedies to settle the issues, and asked for comment. <br /> Weinberger reiterated that the entire project exceeded the approved 500 cubic yards of alteration and in <br /> order to maintain the required 3:1 slope the entire slope will need to be shaved in order to pull the hill <br /> from the wetland. Weinberger questioned how the Commission felt about the encroachment into the <br /> wetland. <br /> Mr. Stephenson asked what could be done to keep the restored wetland buffer intact. <br /> Weinberger repeated that the City protects wetlands within 26' thus ensuring that citizens do not disturb <br /> the wetland. <br /> Mr. Stephenson stated that MCWD had indicated to him that permits are available which allow fill back <br /> to a wetland as long as the natural buffer is restored,much like the golf course had done. <br /> Since the variances Mr. Stephenson referred to were never obtained,Mr. Galatz repeated that the <br /> hardship was his own doing and the edge of the ridge must be moved back. <br /> With regard to the neighboring properties, Gaffron stated it was his opinion that each will need to apply <br /> for their own permit to have the fill remain,Mr. Stephenson cannot apply for permits on behalf of his <br /> neighbors. <br /> Bremer questioned whether the letters and correspondence that have been received are enough to satisfy <br /> issue#3 for the City. <br /> Bellows maintained that no letter can suffice to support the CUP. <br /> Fritzler voiced his opinion, stating that the crest of the hill needs to be backed up to what was originally <br /> approved in the CUP. Too much has been done and it is on the onus of Mr. Stephenson to correct the <br /> problem. Fritzler maintained that the integrity of the 26' wetland setback needs to be restored. He added <br /> that, in his opinion,he would vote to deny the variance, deny the CUP, and require the applicant to move <br /> the slope back.. <br /> Bellows requested that item#6 of the conditions on page 4 of the report be stricken since the neighbors <br /> are not co-applicants in this request. <br /> PAGE 14 OF 29 <br />