My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-15-1985 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1985
>
04-15-1985 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/1/2022 2:34:32 PM
Creation date
12/1/2022 2:29:18 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
119
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
The nppliccint roplaccil his septic system in November 1984. <br />Please read my lettet to him dated 11/28/84 regarding the system <br />and its capabilities. We have established that no alternate <br />drainfield site exists on the propierty, and that if the now <br />system fai Is at some poi n t and cannot be repaired in its existing <br />location, a holding tank would be required. We have no plans to <br />sewer the bong Lake Boulevard area, but we do have 4 more houses <br />along the lakeshore w’th potential future (one existing) septic <br />system problems likely ">nly repairable with the use of holding <br />tanks. Expansion of any of these houses would increase the <br />potential number of occupants (read "water users") and from a <br />planning standpoint, these expansion.R should be avoided. <br />Technically, the septic system installed at Bigham's last <br />fall should be able to handle 300-400 gallons of effluent per <br />day. At a standard design rate of 75 gallons per person per day <br />this ^'oulfi be expected to serve 5 persons, the size of Bighams <br />projected household. However, for new construction the City uses <br />a minimum design rate of 150 gal Ions per bedroom (or 2 people per <br />bedroom) per day. There is always the possibility that an 8- <br />member family would move in if this was a 1-bedroom home. The <br />septic systCM probably wouldri't sustain that intense of a use. <br />Note that applicant has not yet made the required changes to <br />the retaining walls on Ivy Lane per conditions 1, 2 and 5 of <br />Resolution *1600. <br />In summary, staff secs 4 main issues which should be <br />addressed in your recommendation for approval or denial of this <br />variance: <br />1 ) <br />2) <br />3) <br />4) <br />birdcover <br />Structural encroachment in 75' setback zone <br />Beptic system capability <br />Completion of Resolution *1600 conditions <br />1 <br />• r
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.