My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-26-2015 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
01-26-2015 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/29/2021 3:42:36 PM
Creation date
4/2/2015 11:07:58 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
120
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,January 12,2015 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (3. 2325 GLENDALE COVE—ENCROACHMENT ISSUE continued) <br /> McMillan asked if the City would have required anything for the buffer area as part of the subdivision <br /> even if there was no wall there. <br /> Curtis stated at the time this development was created,the Watershed District had allowed some filling or <br /> some impacts to wetlands and wetland buffer areas. The areas that were considered buffer replacement <br /> areas were expected to be vegetated by the MCWD and the City,which was not done in this case. <br /> Levang asked if the documents specify that. <br /> Curtis stated the Flowage and Conservation Easement does specify that. <br /> Casey Hoehn,property owner, stated they closed on their house the end of January of 2014 and <br /> subsequently moved in. The retaining walls were not part of the original survey from the builder since <br /> they were not sure what they were dealing with exactly. Hoehn stated in the spring they elected not to go <br /> with the builder's landscaper and instead hired their own landscaper. <br /> Hoehn indicated they then approached the Watershed District. Hoehn stated since it was a wetland buffer <br /> area, it was his understanding the regulations of the Watershed District supersede the City's regulations. <br /> There was some back and forth with the Watershed District on the buffer area and they performed some <br /> site visits. Hoehn stated they informed the Watershed District that they would like to construct a retaining <br /> wall in an attempt to address some severe erosion controls. Hoehn indicated they did receive verbal <br /> approval from the Watershed District for that wall and that it was not until after the fmal inspection by the <br /> City that they found out the wall was an issue. <br /> Levang stated she appreciates the letter submitted by the Hoehn's and that it does appear they were <br /> proactive in this matter. Levang stated she does have a question about their letter under the <br /> recommendation section. Levang noted the letter states, "We will also work with the MCWD on a cost <br /> effective compromise with seeding natural grasses and vegetation in agreed upon locations..." <br /> Levang stated in her view compromise is not the right term and that they will need to comply with what <br /> the MCWD requires. Levang stated the Council needs to be assured that they will do whatever is <br /> necessary to protect the wetland and buffer areas and that the language she read sounds a little <br /> equivocating. <br /> Hoehn stated when he said compromise,he was speaking more to a cost efFective solution. Hoehn stated <br /> under the approval of the Watershed District,they were provided a boundary,which is depicted in the <br /> pictures as the second silt fence. Hoehn indicated they then used that as our boundary. Hoehn stated he <br /> would be willing to replace certain areas with natural grass but that he has already incurred the cost of sod <br /> and irrigation. Hoehn stated he was hoping he could speak with the Watershed District about a possible <br /> compromise where he would not have to tear up all the sod. <br /> Mrs.Hoehn stated they want to be respectful of the wetland. Hoehn stated following the verbal approval, <br /> they went ahead and spent the money on the additional structures only for them to come back and say that <br /> it needs to be removed. Hoehn stated it is based on financial concems and frustration on their part. <br /> Page 5 of 19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.