Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />• Monday, July 22, 2002 <br />6:30 o'clock p.m. <br />08) #02 -2793 REVIS STEPHENSON,1850 FOX RIDGE ROAD - AFTER - THE -FACT <br />CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES - Continued <br />Mr. Stephenson volunteered the suggestion that the City hold his $5,000 in account until they <br />would be satisfied with the project. <br />Sansevere stated that it would be nice if Mr. Chalfen could come to see the Council for himself. <br />Galatz maintained that his client should not have to be here. Mr. Chalfen was the one who was <br />inconvenienced by the modifications and is forced to view a hump 8' higher than what was <br />approved, rather than the forest he so enjoyed. <br />Sansevere reiterated that the City was attempting to make a compromise, and asked if Mr. Galatz <br />had been authorized to do so for Mr. Chalfen. <br />Galatz indicated that if the hump were 8' lower and covered with plantings and trees far bigger <br />than those presently being planted, which would take 50 -60 years to mature, that might be <br />acceptable. <br />Sansevere asked staff if there was a mandate in the original application requiring the applicant to <br />plant his hill, was he bound to do what we are now asking. <br />Galatz contended that there was a landscape plan submitted with the application. <br />Weinberger pointed out that there were no tree preservation mandates included in the application. <br />Sansevere explained to Galatz that if the City requires Mr. Stephenson to remove the fill and <br />return the hill to its original location, Mr. Chalfen may be even worse off than he is now. <br />Sansevere maintained that if the hill were completely removed, the applicant would not be <br />required to plant any additional trees. Not only would Mr. Chalfen have lost his original view, he <br />would be in worse shape. <br />Weinberger stated that the applicant, in the original proposal, would have been required to add <br />approximately 12 trees with no real size requirement. <br />Sansevere asked about screening or if the applicant was incumbent to put a certain number of <br />trees on the hump. Since no tree preservation requirement really exists, Sansevere argued that, if <br />Chalfen forces the applicant to shave back the hill, there might not be any trees at all. <br />Galatz indicated that his client would like the hill to go back to what was approved and not worry <br />• about the screening because it would grow back. <br />PAGE 25 of 35 <br />