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 /> Smith stated that she concurred with the thoughts laid out by Fritzler. <br /> Rahn indicated that in his view the applicant had been negligent of what was originally approved and <br /> agreed with removing item#6. <br /> Berg concurred. <br /> Bremer stated that it was unfortunate that the applicant would need to destroy the work he had done; <br /> however, he had created this for himself. <br /> Bellows agreed with Fritzler and struck item#6. <br /> Mr. Stephenson stated that had he known the neighbors would need to apply for the permits themselves, <br /> he would have had them do so. <br /> Smith asked staff if anything could be done to minimize the disruption to the neighborhood. <br /> Bellows pointed out that none of this disruption would have had to occur if the applicant would have <br /> followed the letter of the law right from the start. <br /> Weinberger stated that, in the applicants defense,he had asked for neighbor consent to the co- <br /> application. <br /> Mr. Stephenson expressed his disappointment and referred to the Orono Mission Statement which he felt <br /> encouraged the City to do what's best for the environment and the majority of its citizens support. He <br /> stated that he did not mean to create this mess and could pull the overflow fill out of the wetland buffer <br /> rather readily and reseed at his expense. Mr. Stephenson maintained that it did not make sense for the <br /> City to order him to do something to the neighbors property now after they have recommended their <br /> support of the project. <br /> Berg stated that the project needs to revert to what was originally approved. What he has done was not <br /> part of the original plan, and therefore needs to be removed. Even if the neighbors love what he has <br /> done,they did not file an application or join in the application. <br /> Mr. Stephenson questioned the purpose for an after-the-fact application in the first place if the City does <br /> not approve them. <br /> Berg stated that they are available in order to allow the City to correct what was done improperly. <br /> Mr. Stephenson stated that had he not filed for the after-the-fact application he would be continuing his <br /> work today. <br /> Rahn clarified that by not filing the application,Mr. Stephenson would not be excused from correcting <br /> the problem,in fact,the City had sent him notice to do so. <br /> PAGE 15 OF 29 <br />