07-22-2002 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. 07) #02 -2791 DAVE AND JODI RAHN,1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - Continued Rahn insisted that he had supplied the City with new findings with regard to the floodplain to support his application for the attached garage and urged the Council to factor this into their consideration. When he first applied for variances, it was the City's own topo map that indicated the floodplain, therefore, he designed his proposal around that feature. He asked what would lead him to question the City's topo map, he believed the City had supplied him with accurate information. Only when he looked into purchasing flood insurance and invited the MCWD to look more closely at his property, did he learn that there was obviously no connection to the lake, which coupled with the elevation did not equate to a floodplain. He questioned whether it should be the resident's responsibility to challenge the City's resources. Sansevere asked staff if there had ever been any precedent set where a resident had built using misinformation, and if so, what had been done to right the situation. Gaffron stated that he had reviewed the minutes from the 1997 and 1998 meetings, and argued that the application started out as an addition and rebuild. He questioned the intent of leaving the home in its current location all along. Rahn argued that he had looked into other possibilities, but once he had learned of the floodplain delineation, why would he have proposed the house in a location the City would not have allowed him to build. Rahn questioned why he would have ever been willing to swap the high ground for the low ground, thinking there was a floodplain. Weinberger asked what prompted Rahn to contact Hafner of the MCWD. Rahn repeated that he had begun to investigate the need for flood insurance and found out that the elevation alone did not define floodplain. He questioned how the floodplain delineation was never resolved back when City staff visited the property. Rahn could not understand why staff didn't make the connection when they walked the property back in 1997. Sansevere asked for Administrator Moorse's comments. Moorse stated that first it was an addition to a small cabin, and then the applicant needed a detached garage, both of which maxed out the hardcover. Now the applicant would like a second garage without removing the existing garage. Sansevere asked, once again, if the misinformation about the floodplain should be factored in or if this was germane. While it makes sense to allow the attached garage, Moorse questioned the hardship for keeping • the other garage. PAGE 14 of 35