Laserfiche WebLink
Message Page 1 of 2 <br /> Evelyn M. Turner <br /> From: Evelyn M. Turner <br /> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 1:24 PM <br /> To: 'Dave Gerold' <br /> Subject: RE: Pellizer Revised <br /> The City Engineer usually prefers to review full size prints, especially for the initial review. He will be here <br /> tomorrow morning for a meeting. If I have the prints by 10:15 I will be able to hand them to him, rather than <br /> mailing them. As long as there are no hardcover issues the shed may stay. There will be a form for the owners <br /> to sign. I'm sorry but I can't remember the female owner's name. I also need her relationship to Mr. Pellizzer. I <br /> will see if I can have the form ready to trade for the plans. <br /> Evelyn Turner <br /> From: Dave Gerold [mailto:dbgerold@pclink.com] <br /> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 11:30 AM <br /> To: Timothy Pellizzer'; 'K. Brian Nowak' <br /> Cc: Evelyn M. Turner; Mike Gaffron <br /> Subject: FW: Pellizer Revised <br /> Greeting to all, <br /> Per earlier emails regarding questions related to the survey for 520 North Arm Drive, find the attached and <br /> revised survey. One (307 KB) is in color and the other <br /> (306 KB) is black on white. Note that the requested information has been added to the survey. Mr. Pellizzer has <br /> offered to drop 3 printed copies to Orono City offices within the next 24 hours. Please forward the email <br /> attachments to City Engineers for the start of review. <br /> This morning at 9:30, I had a conversation with Willy from the City of Orono regarding Mr. Peilizzer"s request to <br /> not remove the storage building that is currently located on the alternate septic site. During initial conversations <br /> with Willy, when he raised a concern regarding the storage building, I stated that if it was required to remove the <br /> building to gain approval of our overall septic design we wouid. This statement became to be understood that we <br /> would remove the building. This was mistaken. It later became documented on our permit application that the <br /> building was to be removed. In my conversation with Will this morning, he stated that he did not have an issue <br /> with the present storage building and would not hold back approval of our septic design with the building as <br /> located. Willy did offer that there may be an issue with "hardcover" calculations and City Ordinance limits. I have <br /> asked Demars-Gabriel Surveyors to include the present storage building in the revised calculations they have <br /> included on the attached survey. I did not receive a call from Robert at Demars-Gabriel stating that there was a <br /> conflict with the limits of hardcover, so I am assuming that we are within limits. Please advise me if there are <br /> further issues with the detached existing storage building. <br /> Please advise me of any additional information you may need as I wish to keep the processing of this permit <br /> application moving ahead. <br /> Thanks you for your continued help with our application. <br /> Dave Gerold <br /> -----Original Message----- <br /> From: ilklll@aol.com [mailto:ilklil@aol.com] <br /> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 10:42 AM <br /> To: dbgerold@pclink.com <br /> Subject: Pellizer Revised <br /> 9/30/2008 <br />