Laserfiche WebLink
r • <br />MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CIT^ COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON MAY 13, 1996 <br />(#9 - On-Site Systems Code Ordinance Amendment - Continued) <br />Jabbour said there were about 600 units in the City non-conforming, mainly due to the 3' <br />separation requirement He said he was not anxious to get in\olved in this issue He <br />noted the number of residents being driven out of theii homes due to high taxes and cost <br />of sewering Jabbour contmented that to ask a resident to pay $20,000 for a system is <br />terrible, and noted that he wished to sustain the residents Jabbour said it was his opinion <br />that the new buyers of homes pick up the cost for upgrades <br />Callahan asked if the Council recommended making the upgrade requirement contingent <br />on the sale of the property Kelley said no, adding that it be contingent on failure of the <br />system He noted that if an addition w as done and paid for in cash, it would not trigger <br />an inspection by any mortgage company Kelley said if a system is conforming except for <br />the 3' separation and the residents plan on residing there, he saw no reason for them to <br />need to use that insurance policy and force them to build on their alternate site <br />Hurr asked when the requirement for both a primar>- and alternate site was initiated. <br />Weekman said that occurred in 1978 Houses built before that time did not require an <br />alternate site Mabusth clarified that this is the first time the City would be asking for an <br />alternate site Weekman said the language has been clarified regarding alternate sites and <br />any changes to sites <br />Hurr asked if a site can accommodate an addition but there was no alternate septic site, <br />would no building permit be allowed because there is no alternate site'’ Weekman said <br />septic is based on the number of bedrooms and bathrooms but conceded that this scenario <br />would seriously restrict the property owner ’s options <br />Jabbour said his vision of the system w ould result in compliance within a year if the septic <br />system fails, excluding the case of the 3 ’ separation Jabbour continued that if the <br />property was mortgaged or the property sold, a new owner would force the issue. <br />However, if an addition was built, he would leave the system alone <br />Weekman said Gafiron thought 5 years was realistic It was a fair enough time to ensure <br />people did not forget about the requirement but not so soon as to force the issue. <br />Weekman thought 10 years would be satisfactory but 20 years would probably result in <br />the State forcing the 3 ’ separation requirement.