My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-13-2013 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
Historical
>
2010-2019
>
2013
>
05-13-2013 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/19/2015 4:05:01 PM
Creation date
2/19/2015 4:04:59 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
• MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday,May 13,2013 <br /> � 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (6a. #13-3599 HOMETIME VIDEO PUBLISHING(DEAN JOHNSOl�, 80 CREEK RIDGE <br /> PASS—ATF VARIANCE—RESOL UTION NO. 6227, Continued) <br /> Due to these constraints and the extraordinary circumstances presented by the sewer line location, Staff <br /> concluded it would be unreasonable to hold up this project. Based upon the reasons cited in Staffls <br /> memorandum,the builder was advised that he could proceed with the project by pivoting the home away <br /> from the sewer line to maintain the necessary 10-foot separation from it but would have to make an after- <br /> the-fact variance application. The variance would be for a minor encroachment of the required 30-foot <br /> setback on the opposite side of the house. Staff's conclusion was that this was a proper course of action. <br /> The after-the-fact variance application and survey were submitted on May 19`h. This after-the-fact <br /> variance is not considered to be a violation unlike other after-the-fact variances, which are considered to <br /> be code violations. Staff did not provide a strict submittal timeline for the builder.This explains why the <br /> variance hearing was not held until the April Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission <br /> voted 5 to 0 to recommend approval of the setback variance. <br /> Following the Planning Commission's review, Staff required the builder to submit a survey showing the <br /> actual location of the sewer line prior to moving the variance forward to the City Council. When the <br /> survey arrived, Staff was surprised that it did not show the expected bend or offset in the sewer line. It <br /> turned out the surveyor merely sighted between manholes and did not re-dig the sewer line to survey it <br /> directly. As a result, Staff does not know the exact as-built location of the sewer line. At this point Staff <br /> has to rely on the verbal/visual reports from Public Works Staff and the builder that the pipe was located <br /> too close to the house. <br /> This situation has brought to Staffls attention the need to define a more effective process when such <br /> unforeseen predicaments present themselves. Ideally, and in the future, Staff will bring the situation to <br /> Council's attention immediately and advise them of the decisions being made at a Staff level. <br /> When lines are exposed in the future for repairs, etc., public works plans to utilize our City GPS unit to <br /> get an accurate in the field locate for our utility. In this particular case, it would have been of value to <br /> have the exact location of the pipe verified by the surveyor while the pipe was exposed before the owner <br /> is given a go-ahead in order to confirm the basis for the decision. <br /> Staff recommends approval of the after-the-fact side setback variance allowing the 6-foot encroachment <br /> into the 30-foot side yard. <br /> Levang asked why this did not appear before the Planning Commission sooner since this happened in <br /> November. <br /> Curtis indicated the application was not looked at as a violation and Staff did not put the additional <br /> pressure on the builder as they typically would under different after-the-fact situations. Staff worked with <br /> the builder to make sure they submitted an application for an after-the-fact application and things were <br /> delayed slightly because the builder was out of the country. Once Staff received the as-built survey,the <br /> builder made the application for the after-the-fact permit. <br /> McMillan asked when construction the house started. <br /> Page 3 of 26 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.