08-10-2009 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 10, 2009 7:00 o'clock p.m. (6. KAREN FEYO REQUEST FOR FEE RED UCTION, Continued) McMillan asked whether the correspondence was being sent to another party who was involved in this matter. Feyo indicated there are three people who own the property but that none of them has received any correspondence. They did receive a bill for $1800 in November for the extra engineering which went to the other property owner but they were notified of that immediately. In their view the $1800 is excessive and they would like it reduced. Based on the City's response, in her view the extra charge is applied arbitrarily and they would like the fee removed. Feyo stated they received the variance in September of 2007 and received the bill for $1800 two months after that. White stated prior to 2006, the City did not have as many drainage and runoff issues as they have experienced following all the construction in the City, which has required more engineering on applications received after that. White noted this site did require some additional engineering due to its configuration and that the plans submitted by the landscaper were not adequate, which also required extra work on the part of the City Engineer. Kellogg noted that Item No. 4 contained in the June 17'h letter to Ms. Feyo touches on some of the issues, and that one of the major issues was that his office was required to send numerous letters requesting • information. Kellogg noted the rain garden issue took over a month to resolve. Feyo stated they were not aware that the landscaper was not doing what was required and that it was her understanding he addressed the rain garden immediately. White stated he understands this matter has gone on for a considerable amount of time and that he would be in favor of cutting the fee in half. Murphy stated he is in agreement with Mayor White and that there was a period of time that the City was transitioning to this new fee arrangement, which possibly contributed to some of the issues experienced by the Feyos. Feyo stated the variance cost also increased dramatically and that she received a letter stating it is now $1200 and was originally $75. Bremer stated to her understanding the cost was actually $250. Gaffron stated a letter dated July 6, 2006, indicated the actual cost would be $600. Gaffron stated the $75 was the result of a very outdated application form being used by Ms. Feyo. Murphy noted the City has spent a considerable amount of time attempting to figure this out and that they are willing to reduce the fee in half, but that the Feyos also need to assume some responsibility for the issues encountered. • Gaffron stated in a letter addressed to Ms. Feyo dated January 26, 2006, she was notified that the City received her request for a variance renewal last approved in 1995. The last variance approval expired in 1996. Ms. Feyo was informed at that time that the forms and fees have changed since that time and new PAGE 9