My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-25-1996 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
1990-1996 Microfilm
>
1996
>
11-25-1996 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2023 1:55:34 PM
Creation date
9/5/2023 1:53:30 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.
/
239
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
MESUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITS COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 12, 1996 <br />(#9 - Engineer's Report Feasibility Study - Continued) <br />Jabbour indicated that the property owner should not have the right to appeal the cost <br />Kelley agreed Jabbour went on to say that the City had taken the direction that the area <br />was not to be a hot spot He indicated that while it was said to be the intent ot the owner <br />to preserve trees by install .ig the sewer, the sewer installation would disturb the land and <br />result in the loss of many trees Jabbour said he would support adding this property <br />owner to the list but wanted to clarity these points <br />Callahan noted that the City can determine not to build the sew er if the costs become too <br />high <br />Radio stated that the property owner has no right to the sewer But if he w ants his <br />property to become connected, he would have to pay full cost, and it would not be forced <br />on him The decision to connect and pay the required cost would lie with the property <br />owner <br />Kelley questioned whether it was a good policy to sewer two areas separated by another <br />development which is not planned for sewer Moorse reported that the development in <br />question has septic and alternate sites He noted, ideally, sewer would serve the <br />development but it would not be forced on them. Kelley relayed a hypothetical question <br />of septic failure to such properties Cook said if the properties failed, there would be <br />plans in place to connect them into the system These properties would be assessed for <br />lateral and trunk charges <br />Callahan indicated there w ere a limited number of sewer units available, and the City is <br />bound by the MUSA application <br />It was noted that this area, as well as the Maresh property, are not located within the <br />MUSA boundary' and would be considered as part of the extra 50 sewer units available. <br />The applications would be considered on an individual basis Cook added that it was <br />their plan to provide for such possibilities noting the area could be accommodated quite <br />easily He noted changes could be made to lift stations at a reasonable cost. <br />Kelley asked if sewer did go to this area on West Farm Road, would it become necessary <br />to take the road as a public road. Both Cook and Moorse indicated that it would not be <br />necessary to do so and easements may be taken for the sewer. <br />Jabbour informed the Council members that they need to look at the policies established <br />rather than going through the whole process for each application. Jabbour said the <br />C ouncil should take the position that sewer will not be provided unless the public health <br />and welfare were in jeopardy and not for purposes of property division and individual <br />benefit.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.