Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 <br />(#6 - #2007 Tony Eiden Company - Continued) <br />Uneham reported that the purpose of the berm on the north lot boundary, which continues <br />to the west, is a result of an effort to make lot I more saleable. A void was filled in <br />between two berms to create a new berm. Work was done on an existing berm on the <br />west and at existing grade on the east. There were no deviations. Mabusth said that the <br />berm was partially completed <br />Mabusth said that the primary and alternate septic sites force drainage to immediate rear <br />of residence It was noted that the ground was wet in the back yard. The Engineer <br />recommended construction of a swale to the rear by the house that would carry drainage <br />from east to west. The applicant said there was enough elevation for proper drainage via <br />the swale. <br />Mabusth asked the applicant if he thought about a swale between the lots, draining to the <br />south and direct drainage out to Countryside The applicant agreed saying the the hill <br />carries major drainage from higher elevations at east. <br />Mabusth reported that the septic is a mound system, and there is a need to direct drainage <br />away from the toes of the mou; ds, <br />Peterson asked how the berm by the City trail along Watertown Road impacts the <br />drainage The Applicant said the berm would have no impact on trail. Mabusth said the <br />berm presents problems for the septic system sites and concentrates drainage via lot 1 to <br />the immediate rear of residetKe. <br />LiiKlquist asked if the plan would meet the 20' septic setback. The Applicant replied that <br />it would when amended. Lineham also said that he was working with Steve Weeknran, <br />who approved the mound system, and asked to see Weekman on the site rather than <br />through additional paper work. Mabusth said that the issue was of such great importaiKe <br />that it cannot be worked out on site only. Smith responded that it was needed to be on <br />paper first. <br />Peterson said he had no problem with the berm as long as it did not affect the drainage <br />system to which Mabusth agreed. Peterson saw the issue as one of engineering and <br />grading being worked out with the developer and Weekman. Mabusth said the Engineer <br />has recommended that a swale be develop^ to rear of residence and/or along shared lot <br />lines of I and 2 or a combination of both. Nolan noted the importance of maintaining a <br />20' septic separation with site drainage on the shared lines or directing away from it.