Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council directs staff to draft denial findings for after-the-fact lakeshore variances at 1200 Wildhurst Trail
Summary
Council directed staff to prepare findings for denial of after-the-fact variances and a conditional use permit for work at 1200 Wildhurst Trail after staff reported missing permit plans and recommended denial; the owner asked for a tabling and said he intends to cooperate.
The Orono City Council voted to direct staff to prepare findings for denial of after-the-fact variances and a conditional use permit related to improvements at 1200 Wildhurst Trail.
Planning staff told the council the city received a complaint in July about improvements constructed without permits on the lakeside of the home, including a patio, stairs and tiered retaining walls that encroach on the 75-foot lakeshore setback and the five-foot side setback. Staff said the applicant submitted a survey the night of the meeting but had not provided the detailed plans for the walls or patio requested by the planning commission and that the shed on the property appears to sit within the average lakeshore setback. Staff recommended that the council direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings for denial and present formal action at the council's March 9 meeting.
During the public hearing, property owner Brian Roth said family issues caused delays in meeting application deadlines but that he wants to cooperate. "I'm here to cooperate. I'm not here to fight this," Roth said, and requested the council table the matter to allow his attorney to work with staff to produce a workable timeline and submittals.
Council members pressed the applicant on the seven-month timeline since the matter first appeared before the planning commission and expressed concern about missing required materials despite staff outreach. Staff explained two paths: extend the application and continue the planning process, or deny the application and proceed with enforcement if the applicant does not voluntarily correct the violations. One council member noted code may impose a waiting period for reapplication if a similar request is denied.
A motion to direct staff to prepare findings for denial was moved and approved by voice vote. Staff cautioned that the council's action to return denial findings is not the final denial; it directs preparation of a resolution for the council's upcoming meeting. If the council later adopts a denial resolution, enforcement would follow and options for reapplication could be constrained under city code.
The council's action was procedural: staff will draft the findings for a future formal vote and the applicant may seek extensions or further engagement with staff ahead of that meeting.
Next steps: staff will prepare draft denial findings for council consideration at the March 9 meeting; the applicant may elect to extend the statutory review period or provide the requested plans sooner to pursue administrative compliance.
