Laserfiche WebLink
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 />Sansevere asked how this could be acceptable if Mr. Chalfen's biggest objection is the lack of <br />screening. He wondered how it would grow back without being planted. <br />Galatz stated that in terms of what it would take to satisfy his client, Galatz argued that it is not <br />okay to break the law and then ask for permission. He believed this to be a bad precedent for the <br />City. His client insists that the applicant do what the City told him he could do, and nothing <br />more, even if that means restoring the hill and wetland. <br />Sansevere asked if staff was uncomfortable with what is existing. <br />Galatz stated that even in its most lenient recommendation, staff asks for some extent of <br />modification. <br />Assuming that Mr. Peterson's wetland delineation is correct, Weinberger stated that staff's <br />recommendation is that there be no fill within 26' of the wetland and that slopes don't exceed <br />3:1. Weinberger pointed out that thru settling the-slope might get to 3:1 and questioned whether • <br />it would be worth making the modification to the whole hill for 300 s.f. impact. He stated that <br />the question now is whether the further environmental impact on the wetland is worth mitigating <br />for 300 s.f. <br />Murphy indicated that the longer the process goes on the luckier Mr. Stephenson looks. The <br />slope is settling to 3:1 etc. In his view, the City has a couple of real options available. He would <br />propose that they always have the fall back option 1, to remove and undo everything he did, but <br />doesn't solve much. Option 2, allows the applicant to come back with an actual landscape design <br />that would incorporate everything that we have talked about, and although Mr. Chalfen would <br />not have final authorization on it, Murphy would like to invite him to review the plan, as well as, <br />his attorney, staff, and Council. The fall back position is always present, but he felt it would <br />behoove the interested parties to consider other options. <br />Galatz maintained that Stephenson had already been allowed six months, and the City continues <br />to allow him more and more time to get further into it. <br />Sansevere stated that they were attempting to acquiesce to his client's concerns. If issues had not <br />been raised at the last meeting, Sansevere indicated that they might have been done with this <br />already. <br />Murphy contended that he drove out to Mr. Chalfen's property and sat in the driveway, and was <br />hard pressed to see how awful this is. This being summer, Murphy recognized that the view <br />might be somewhat different in the winter but not necessarily to the degree Galatz asserts. <br />Murphy reiterated that everyone was well aware of the baseline, and would like to give the <br />PAGE 26 of 35 <br />