Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 9, 1987 <br />n'_177 TODD WATERS <br />61 CASCO POINT ROAD <br />CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/ <br />VARIANCES <br />DENIAL RESOLUTION #2292 <br />Todd Waters and <br />present for this <br />his attorney David Davenport were <br />matter. <br />City Administrator Bernhardson explained that Council <br />directed staff at their last meeting to draft a <br />resolution denying an after - the -fact conditional use <br />permit and variances and ordering the applicant to <br />restore the lakeshore yard to the original condition. <br />Staff has submitted this denial resolution for Council <br />consideration, noting that the deadline for restoration <br />is June 15, 1988'. <br />Zoning Administrator Mabusth reviewed the pertinent <br />points within the denial resolution. <br />Attorney David Davenport stated that they obviously did <br />not agree with the findings of the denial resolution <br />feeling that they have not been supported by the <br />evidence that had been presented to the Planning <br />Commission and Council. Referring to Finding #15, he <br />noted that it is their intention to provide the easement <br />document. He requested clarification of Finding #26B <br />stating that it was their understanding that the intent <br />of the resolution was to require completed restoration <br />of the site to its original condition which would <br />involve reinstallation of the small drainage tile that <br />existed prior to construction. It is his understanding <br />that Engineer Cook may be recommending that an 18" pipe <br />be installed and if this is the case, it is inconsistent <br />with the finding made by Council at the last review that <br />the property be restored to its original condition. <br />Therefore, they object on the basis that they are <br />requiring the Waters' to solve the ponding or inundation <br />problem that is not their responsibility to solve. <br />City Engineer Cook clarified that restoration to the <br />original condition would involve reinstallation of an 8" <br />pipe, however it would not change the previous <br />conditions which involved the ponding area. <br />Attorney Davenport explained that the 8" pipe would not <br />solve the past and current drainage problem. <br />Councilmember Callahan objected to the references made <br />in the resolution that Council "conceptually" denies the <br />request and that staff, consultants, and applicants <br />should work together to decide what size pipe should be <br />installed. He viewed the after - the -fact conditional use <br />4 <br />