Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING � <br /> Monday, December 12, 2005 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (8. #OS-3152 BOHLAND DEVELOPNIENT ON BEHALF OF JAMES D. MACKINNON, ET <br /> AL, "3500"!!'ATERTOWNROAD, Continuerl) <br /> Muiphy stated in his view the Watershed District could look at some of lhese wetlands in a different way <br /> and that the City could approach the Watershed District and ask them to look at the whole thing in <br /> context. <br /> McMillan stated she appreciates all the worlc t11e developer has done on this development,but the one <br /> concei7�she has is that without having any conservation design ordinances on the books, she is not in <br /> favor of allowing less than two-acre lots with their ov�m septic systems. McMillan stated the two-acre <br /> zoning requirement for septic systems has been on the books of Orono for a considerable ni.unber of years <br /> and that she�ersonally catulot Ureak that precedence without having some well-de�ned ordinances on the <br /> books dealing with conservation design. <br /> Bohl inquired what the time frame is for the adoption of the conservation design ordinances. <br /> Gaffi•on stated Staff and the Planning Coinmission are not ready at the present time to reconunend <br /> adoption of any speci�c ordinances. Gaffron stated he is hopeful he will get some response from DSU in <br /> the near firture on the draft ordinance. <br /> Gaffron stated that perhaps the two-acre septic requirement should be a separate topic from the layout of <br /> this development. Gaffron pointed out the developer is not changing the density in this area. <br /> Murphy inquired how the documentation from Shardlow relates to this application. Murphy inquired <br /> whether this application would be excluded from the new ordinances. <br /> Barrett stated the application would fall under the current ordinance. <br /> Gaffron stated he is unsure whether the new ordinances would help this application. Gaffron noted the <br /> new ordinances would require the same process that the applicant has already gone through. <br /> White concurred there may be a precedence issue by deviating fi-om the two-acre minimum requirement <br /> for a septic site. <br /> Gaffi-on stated he is attempting to write language into the new ordinances that will meet the Council's <br /> concei7ls relating to a small site and septic. <br /> Gaffron noted the review period for this application goes to the middle of March. <br /> White pointed out the applicant still would have to appear Uefore the Watershed Dish-ict. <br /> Bohl stated he needs preliminary plat approval prior to going Uefore the Watershed District. Bohl stated <br /> he would like some kind of approval that would allow the Watershed Dish•ict to review this application. <br /> McMillan stated the Watershed District does not want to review applications too early in the process due � <br /> to possiUle changes made to the plans. <br /> Muiphy stated he did discuss this review process with the Watershed District and was told by a <br /> representative that they would like to do concuizent engineering with the City. <br /> PAG� 14 of 20 <br />