06-17-1996 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20. 19% (^I - #2136 Grccnlicld Corporation - Continued) Mabusth reported that all 12 septic sites tested tvill require mound systems The existing residenlMl septic system is failing on lot 6 and primary’ and alternate sites were testetl Eleven of the sites meet the 6® o slope requirement The alternate site for lot 6 is at an slope, which uas approved by Weckman The proposed priman' site does not meet the 75* separation from the well, but would meet the State setback The applicant could be kcd to relocate the welluStN Mabusth described the variances required w ith the proposal Three of the lots served at the cul-de-sac do not meet the width requirement Applicant’s survevor noted lot 1 is surrounded by County road at the north and west, and lot 4 by the ftiture road on that along the east Lot width variances have been granted by the City in the past for the lots adjacent to the cul-dc-sac Mabusth noted that lots 2, 3, and 4 arc long and narrow. Mabusth asked the Commission how they would physically define the rear lot lines of the 3 parcels and protected septic sites from uses of future property owners Peterson a.sked how that could be accomplished and still protect the septic sites’’ Mabusth said signs or plantings are possibilities, but snow fencing was not acceptable as it could be easily removed Mabusth said it shall be the responsibility of all three ow ners to know the boundaries Lindquist asked if this notation could be placed on the deeds, but Mabusth said property owners are not always aware of what is recorded on the chain of title Mabusth infnrme<l Peterson that there are no plans for sewering the area in the near futuie Mark Gronberg noted if lot I was built on, a mound system would be used, and would define the svstem Smith noted the difficulty in defining the septic sites for lots 2, 3, and 4, especially with the need to go through a septic site area to gel to the lots She suggested the establishment of a corridor to notate where the septic sites w ould go Mabusth asked if this would be a natural barrier? Smith said it could be delineated across the two property lines Peterson commented on the question of balance in developing the property and possible need to eliminate a lot, which was noted during the sketch plan re'.aew He noted that if a lot was eliminated, it would solve the width and septic problems Peterson said the applicant, beyond this issue, has responded well, noting the issues were contingent on the i 1i 14 recommendations made bv Staffi