|
•
<br />MINUTES OF THE ORONO- PLANNING COMMISSION
<br />MEETING HELD ON MAY 20. 1996
<br />(91 - 92136 Greenfield Corporation - Continued)
<br />Mabusth reported that all 12 septic sites tested will require mound systems. The existing
<br />residential Septic system is failing on lot 6a.nd nrima.ry and alternate sites were tested.
<br />Eleven of the sites meet the 6% slope requirement, The alternate site for lot 6 is at an 8%
<br />Onne xxThirh wnQ ntnrnrn%n -d h�r W,-A -man ThP nrnnnearl nrimary Site drips not mPPt the
<br />r. r ... r- ....w -�
<br />75' separation from the well, but would meet the State setback. The applicant could be
<br />i d to 1. c"atte the n
<br />as11�.0 LV rt,1V t+LLLL✓ Lily YY X11,
<br />Mabusth described the variances required with the proposal. Three of the lots served at
<br />the cul -de -sac do not meet the width requirement. Applicant's surveyor noted lot 1 is
<br />surrounded by County road at the north and west, and lot 4 by the future road on that
<br />airing the east. Lot width variances, have hPen granters by the Citv in the. pact fnr the into
<br />adjacent to the. cul -de -sac. Mabusth noted that lots 2, 3, and 4 are long and narrow.
<br />1;/Iabi:Sth asked thA (vmmicein» hn,v thin: xx,n„1r1 nh,.ciroll� d`nfine tl;° rear int lines nFtlta
<br />V UUiVii 1V YY .7 Vl,iiLi �/ ,'Ui VLL11,' V {Ai L U - V
<br />3 parcels and protected septic sites from uses of future property owners.
<br />Peterson asked how that could be accomplished and still protect the septic sites? Mabusth
<br />Said ciune nr nlantinvc ara nnecihilitiec Nit cnnw fenr.ina was not arr.Pntahle ac it nnidd he
<br />easily removed. Mabusth said it shall be the responsibility of all three owners to know the
<br />boun},..,, »rl ,r;en Lindquist rim,'n4 Lori `{-`4i�;n »r,tat;r.» lri FYe »lam eri » ti,e rleerin L,,,+ A fol.,,nti,
<br />LLL11VJ. Lindquist asked 11 his 11V Latin 1 could VLF il1CLVt�d on. the deedd J, but A4l 1,U +11.
<br />• said property owners are not always aware of what is recorded on the chain of title.
<br />Mahnsth informed Peterson that there atP_. no plans for se_.wP_.ring the area in the near
<br />future.
<br />Mark Gronberg noted if lot 1 was built on, a mound system would be used, and would
<br />define the system.
<br />Smith noted the difficulty in defining the septic sites for lots 2, 3, and 4, especially with the
<br />need to go through a septic site area to get to the lots. She suggested the establishment of
<br />a corridor to notate inhere the septic sites would go. Mabusth asked if this would be a
<br />natural harrier? Cmith caul it nnidd he rhAineatPrs anrnc5 the two nrnnerty lines
<br />Peterson commented on the question of balance in developing the property and possible
<br />nPPrl to PliminatP a 1nt whit -h wac nntPr) during the elretnh nlan rPViPw NP nntPrl that if a
<br />lot was eliminated, it would solve the width and septic problems. Peterson said the
<br />C» »l,. -n »t i,e�,--A ti,in 'rim, I— en» rie.i „ 11 4; »n +L,e ;nm,en .i,er 4, »,Ye »4 n» ♦i,o
<br />il. p"VLLll L, VL�'V11U L1LJ iJJI{e, 11uJ rL'Jilo11L1VV VY Vll, 11V L1115 L11V 1JJUVJ VYe a co11L,.nge .+, V11 L11V
<br />14 recommendations made by Staff.
<br />
|