PC report/encroachment issue - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

�� MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,January 12,2015 7:00 o'clock p.m. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT 3. 2325 GLENDALE COVE—ENCROACRMENT ISSUE Curtis stated a buitding permit for the new home at 2325 Glendale Cover was issued in September of 2013 and a temporary Certificate of Occupancy allowing the property owners tv move into the residence was issued in January of 2014. Due to winter condirions,the site was not completed at that time. The City-approved site plan associated with the permit included one pmposed retaining wall near the west side of the home. When the fmal as-built survey was submitted in August of 2014,it was noted that three additional walls were constructed around the home. One wall extending the width of the property was constructed within the wetland buffer and the drainage and utility easement had been constructed without City review or approval. An additional wall exceeding four feet in height was constructed on the west side of the home and a building permit is also required due to the height. Typical�y landscape features which vary from the permit-approved landscape plan should have City approval and a zoning permit, which was not done in this case. The wetland buffer area is covered by City conservation and flowage easement and a MCWD wetland buffer declaration. Both documents prohibit construction of structures within the wetland buffer. Upon review of the as-built survey, Staff notified the property owners that one wall was located within the easement area and that it should be removed. Staff further met with the property owners and MCWD staff on November 7 to discuss resolution to the encroachment violation and the final Certificate of Occupancy,which continues to be withheld until the issues are resolved. At that time the Watershed District was willing to offer a compromise solution which involved removing turf and planting native vegetation in the required buffer area but allowing the wall to remain. Following that meeting,the property owners chose to make a formal request for an encroac}unent agreement with the City. Based on the Watershed District's proposal, Staff is agreeable to allowing all or some of the retaining wall within the easement area to remain subject to the requirement that the property owners enter into an encroachment agreement with the City. The encroachment agreement would allow the City to require the property owners to remove the encroaehments if the encroachments become an issue in the future. If the wall remains,the property owners should comply with the requirements of the MCWD regarding establishment of native buffer vegetation. The property owners have provided a statement from a structural engineer regarding the wall exceeding four feet in height on the west side of the home as requested. The property owners should apply for zoning and building permits and pay the after-the-fact fees to address the walls constructed that were not shown on the approved building permit survey. If the Council determines it to be appropriate,the City Attorney can draft an encmachment agreement for consideration at a subsequent meeting. Curtis stated Staff is looking for direction regardiag the encroachment agreement. McMillan asked if the buffer specifications will be worked out with the Watershed District and not involve the City. Page 4 of 19