Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2000 <br />(#2513 Connie Piepho, Continued) <br />Pellizzer stated at this time he is not opposed to reaching some type of agreement with the <br />Applicant. <br />Weinberger stated some type of bond could possibly be posted with the City in favor of the adjoining <br />property owner, which could be used to help pay for relocating of the well. Weinberger stated the <br />bond would have to be attached to the property in the event a sale of the property should occur. <br />Smith commented she would rather not see the City involved in an agreement of this type if at all <br />possible. <br />^iovani stated in his view he does not see why the City would need to be involved. <br />There were no further public comments. <br />Hov.n commented she would be willing to table this application to allow the Applicant time to try to <br />rt3:h an agreement with the adjoining property owner. <br />Movani inquired whether they would need to appear before the Planning Commission again if an <br />agreement is reached. Movani noted the prior application was approved. <br />Hawn stated that approval may have expired. <br />Movani stated he is unsure whether that approval has expired. <br />Weinberger stated he would prefer a new recommendation by the Planning Commission, noting that <br />the previous approval required that a secondary septic site be identified, which has not been done. <br />Movani commented they will need to find a secondary septic site. <br />Hawn inquired whether the adjoining property owner had other available sites for a well. <br />Pellizer indicated he does <br />Movani stated there are not available locations for the pool without a variance of some type. <br />Weinberger stated the approval in August was based on the Applicant finding an alternate septic site. <br />Hawn stated the Applicant will need to locate a secondary septic site before August 16 in order for <br />the previous approval to still be in effect. <br />Ha.vn inquired whether the Applicant would like the Planning Commission to table this application. <br />Movani inquired whether they v.'ould need to come back before the Planning Commission if they <br />meet all the necessary criteria. <br />Havm stated it will be necessary for them to appear before the Planning Commission again. <br />Movani requested the application be tabled. <br />Weinberger noted the Applicant submitted a letter requesting the 60 day statutory review period be <br />waived <br />Page 3