Laserfiche WebLink
MLINMITES OF THE ORONO PL 1 'G C011riMIISSION <br /> MEETLITG HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 <br /> (99-92048 James & Joann Jundt - Continued) <br /> Mabusth said the septic is non-conforming and it is being questione hat affect the <br /> apartment would have on the septic. Mabusth said it is a good id to ask for septic <br /> inspections_ Peterson agreed that the goal is not to allow the se p c to fail_ Crawford <br /> noted that this property was considered a hot spot for sewerinQ t one time, and the <br /> applicant has been dealing with this issue throughout all the plications. <br /> Schroeder added that the ity cannot allow more people reside on the property than the <br /> septic can handle. He is in vor of inspections; and if t system fails, Schroder said that <br /> would affect the conditional se perry it. <br /> The property has two separate s tic units, one for e main residence and one for the <br /> accessory structures. The septic is do not me e the separation requirements. <br /> Peterson commented that normal ins ons cur every two years. This property, <br /> according to Peterson, should be insp ed in re often. <br /> Schroder moved, Lindquist seconded, for proval of a studio within the oversized <br /> accessory structure, subject to conditions the CUP with inspections of existing relevant <br /> system every two months to show its ca b' in handling the increased usage. A charge <br /> will be incurred by the applicant for ext insp 'on time. <br /> Gaffron remarked that the earliest dat for seweri of the property would be the end of <br /> 1996. It is Staffs sense that the septic is not rennin out onto the ground, but noted the 3' <br /> separation is not met. It is possible hat the system y not be able to handle the usable <br /> wastes during this period of time. f this is found to be rue, the septic would need to be <br /> pumped out on a regular basis. <br /> There were no public comment <br /> Ayes 6, Nays 0. <br /> Mabusth commented on an sue with tree removal in the 0-75' zone for terproofing of <br /> a tunnel that was not appro ed by Staff. All of the earth around the tunnel was moved <br /> during the waterproofing rocess. Staff will ask for replanting of these trees. Crawford <br /> commented that the elms were deteriorated, and tree roots were extending into the tunnel. <br /> Part of the tunnel encroaches the 0-75' setback. An amended application will be coming <br /> before the Planning Commission on this issue and is not part of this application. <br /> (#10) #2049 FRED GUTTORMSON AND CHIC DWIGHT, 1220 TONKAWA <br /> ROAD - VARIANCES -PUBLIC BEARING - 9:25-9:48 P.M. <br /> The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. <br /> 12 <br />