Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (8. #04-3002 G & L LAND INVESTMENT, LLC, 740 NORTH ARM DRIVE,VARIANCE— <br /> Continued) <br /> Chair Mabusth and Bremer agreed the Planning Commission can not determine easements but <br /> acknowledged it would be good to have an easement as sewers need to be maintained and access is <br /> needed to the manholes. Chair Mabusth stated she was uncomfortable with making an access <br /> easement a condition of application approval. <br /> Mr. Guilfoil responded the slope is a challenge and without the boathouse, the slope will be even <br /> more of a challenge and suggested some discussion can be initiated that would help the City get to <br /> the manhole and help the property owner keep the dirt out of the lake and maybe a compromise is <br /> there somewhere. With the boathouse, he expressed concern for that end of the lot. <br /> Chair Mabusth advised Mr. Guilfoil of other instances where the City has worked with property <br /> owners with steep topographies. <br /> Berg urged that there be engineering involved in determining if it is more detrimental to remove than <br /> to keep it there. <br /> Noting there is already erosion problems, Rahn agreed that engineering is needed and speculated that <br /> some type of retaining structure may be needed on the steep slope. <br /> Mr. Guilfoil expressed frustration with Orono's position on decks/hardcover calculations, and not <br /> wanting to be penalized by having to remove the boathouse, leading to putting up some retaining wall <br /> to manage the slope, which is then a problem because the boathouse is removed and that it will be <br /> counted into the hardcover calculation. <br /> A public member interjected that there are any number of boathouses that continue to exist and it is <br /> just not true that non-conforming boathouses are not allowed to remain. Also, he stated it is <br /> unconscionable to require the property owners to remove the boathouse and to force them to drive <br /> equipment over the buried sewer line that could be damaged despite their best efforts and hold them <br /> responsible for the damage. <br /> Chair Mabusth asked staff if these issues can be separated and to get engineering advice on the <br /> feasibility of the boathouse removal and impacts on the sewer line. <br /> Gundlach advised that in the past, for example on Casco Circle with a lakeside deck, the City <br /> Engineer was unwilling to make feasibility type recommendations but recommended the applicants <br /> hire an engineer and provide the engineering comments to the City Engineer for review. Her advice <br /> is to hire an engineer to provide comments to the City with the Planning Commission tabling the <br /> matter until May, 2004 or the Planning Commission could go forward with their recommendations <br /> with engineering comments being brought to the City Council meeting for their consideration. <br /> Leslie inquired if there is any precedence for the City assuming responsibility for damage to the <br /> public sewer system in the process of a building removal. <br /> Chair Mabusth responded that staff presented the City's position that the City holds the <br /> person/applicant responsible for sewer line damage. <br /> Page 38 of 49 <br />