My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-11-1979 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
1970-1979
>
1979
>
06-11-1979 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/15/2023 1:39:58 PM
Creation date
2/15/2023 1:38:30 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
74
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).
View images
View plain text
1 <br />r f <br />"sa »' <br />•>. — a M <br />1 .' I <br />TO: <br />FROM: <br />DATE: <br />Jeanne Mabusth, Asst. Zoning Administrator <br />Michael P. Gaffron, Septic System Inspector <br />May 31, 1979 <br />SUBJECT:Enervest Builders fAudrey Heiser) <br />#460 Subdivision - 325 West Lake Street <br />Septic System Review <br />Assuming that we adhere to the normal 75' setback from a wetland <br />for the drainfield on this property, approximately 4,500 s.f. of <br />area useful for drainfield remains at the bottom of the hill. <br />This is large enough for one drainfield to be constructed. If <br />the house is placed to meet the legal setback of 50* from the <br />front property line, it is probable that a primary system can be <br />constructed at the top of the hill. However, the well location <br />will also have to be at the top of the hill which further limits <br />the drainfield area. Placement of the house, well, drainfield, <br />and driveway are critical to allowing the site as a buildable lot. <br />A 10' setback from property line to drainfield ^rather than 20') <br />would be necessary for the upper site to be used. If the normal <br />75' wetland setback is adhered to for the drainfield, I would <br />recommend that the Planning Commission and Council require a <br />definite site plan be approved to ensure that all necessary setbacks <br />and requirements are attainable. The attached site plan shows one <br />of the two logical alternatives. Whoever builds on the lot would <br />be working with a 30% slope at the house location because of the <br />50' front setback. <br />My gut feeling is that with intelligent planning the lot is buildable <br />and that adequate ^albeit costly) primary and alternate septic systems <br />are feasible. But I also feel that development on this lot and other <br />small lots like it has a high potential for septic system problems <br />because of steep slopes and limited useful area for drainfield. <br />Continued development of these small existing lots will certainly <br />not reduce the possibility of a need for municipal sewer in our <br />rural areas. <br />i
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.