My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-23-1996 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1996
>
09-23-1996 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2023 12:58:10 PM
Creation date
9/5/2023 12:54:49 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
390
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
city of Orono <br />2750 Kelly Parkway <br />P.O. Box 66 <br />Crystal Bay. Minn. 55323 <br />I.e consideration of sewer connection for properties of 1090 Brown Rd. North and <br />2085 County Road Six , Orono. Minn. <br />Dear City Officials. <br />My septic system requires replacement. I have signed a contract to have a new <br />system built and would have already done so except that the area is to water saturated <br />to enter into construction. I have recently heard that a plan to extend the city sewer <br />system north on brown road and into the Country Club area and Dakota Ave <br />I am requesting to have both of the above named properties to be included In <br />this project for the reasons listed : <br />1. When S & P Testing walked my properties to search for a septic site, they <br />found one site only on my 2.8 acres that would barely meet code Some portions of <br />this site do not meet the requirement of 12 Inches of good soil below the septic. I was <br />told that all the rest of my land has water right near the surface or that because of <br />heavy truck traffic when my property was a tree farm, that the soil is 'much to <br />compacted ’ to place a septic over it. With this as a starting point, it is a given that this <br />mound system is doomed to fail I was told a range of 8 to 15 years. When this new <br />system fails, another site for a new system does not exist. <br />2. The site found to be acceptable exists in the middle of very dense, beautiful <br />tree growth. Because this was an old tree farm, many old. tall arborvitae. pme. and <br />birch trees exist here. There areik 100 or more trees that would need to be cleared <br />and hauled off leaving a large void amongst the other trees. Besides the anguish of <br />loosing so many old trees, there is the great additional cost of cutting and removing <br />these trees. They would need to be cut and chain dragged out of the site because the <br />area cannot be driven on or the soil would be compacted making the site worthless. I <br />cannot have any of the tress moved to a new site for the same reason. The only option <br />Is to destroy natures beautiful growth Because of the size of these trees and the <br />dense nature of there growth, There removal adds thousands to the cost of the new <br />system. <br />3. The lot next to brown road had only one site found to meet the criteria for a <br />mound system also. The problem with this site is that it is directly over the only <br />suitable building site for a house This makes the new lot essentially worthless unless <br />It had access to city sewer. <br />4. The cost of this septic system has grown to be between $13,000 to $16000 <br />depending on the final tree removal bill. To spend this amount of money on a project <br />that adds zero value to my house is unfortunate, especially with the knowledge that at <br />some pojnt while I am living here that I will be required to spend even more to hook up <br />to city sewer. Because of the circumstances, it seems prudent and wise to become <br />part of the city sewer now and not have to pay double jeopardy. The timing is perfect if <br />not one year to late. <br />I hope this adequately describes my dilemma My properties are available for a
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.