Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Tuesday, February 18, 2020 <br />6:00 p.m. <br />Ressler stated that he is relieved to know that there is no filling or excavation of wetlands on this <br />application. <br />Libby noted that Barnhart had mentioned an easement for City sewer but noted that there is also mention <br />of site locations for subsurface septic treatment. He stated that to him it would make more sense to <br />utilize City sewer and negate the idea of subsurface sewer. <br />Barnhart stated that the applicant will appreciate that type of comment. He stated that this was a pretty <br />substantial issue when this was discussed in 2016. He stated that based on the City's goal for where the <br />boundary is for the MUSA system, they did not want to expand it into this property. <br />Thiesse asked if the existing easement was being used. <br />Barnhart stated that he believes so because right across the street is a lift station. <br />John Quinlivan, Gordon James, 5159 Main Street, Maple Plain, stated that the YMCA no longer owns <br />this property. He explained that they purchased the property in December of 2019. He noted that he did <br />not think the sanitary sewer easement has anything in it. <br />Barnhart explained that the City can do some research, but the survey indicates an easement in place. <br />Mr. Quinlivan stated that he is hard pressed to see why they would push septic for this site when there is <br />literally water and sewer in the roadway. He stated that the cost will be the same, but noted that it doesn't <br />pass the smell test for enviromnental purposes. He stated that they tried to keep the integrity of the area <br />and kept the road in the same place as the existing road. He stated that Lot 5 has a house on it which may <br />be left in place. <br />Ressler reviewed the items the Commission was asked to consider. He stated that his initial thoughts are <br />that Lot 3 is tough. <br />Mr. Quinlivan stated that if there is a sewer easement that will never be used, he asked how the City <br />would propose to remove it. <br />Barnhart stated that he believes the sanitary sewer easement is not for Mr. Quinlivan's property but for <br />other properties and just goes through this property. <br />Mr. Quinlivan questioned whether that meant that if it is there it would run through the property but that <br />would also mean that they could not use it. He asked if it wasn't there whether it would stay in order for <br />someone in the future to run sanitary sewer through the property. <br />Barnhart stated that he does not know the founding principals of that exact easement but he believes it is <br />in use and that it serves other areas. He explained that Mr. Quinlivan's property is not in the MUSA area <br />so it is not eligible to be connected to sanitary sewer. <br />Mr. Quinlivan asked if the easement didn't feed future properties and there wasn't anything in there what <br />the proper protocol would be to remove easements. <br />Barnhart explained that there is a process to vacate easements. <br />Page 18 of 30 <br />