My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-25-1995 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1995
>
09-25-1995 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/6/2023 1:18:13 PM
Creation date
10/6/2023 1:14:52 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
188
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
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 <br />(#9 - #2048 James &. Joann Jundt - Continued) <br />Mabusth said the septic is non-conforming, and h is being questioned \^hat affect the <br />apartmoit would have on the septic. Mabusth said it is a good idea to ask for septic <br />inspections Peterson agreed that the goal is not to allow the septic to fail Crawtord <br />noted that this property was considered a hot spot for sewering at one time, and the <br />applicant has been dealing with this issue throughout all the applications. <br />Schroeder added that the City cannot allow more people to reside on the property than the <br />septic can handle. He is in favor of inspections: and if the system fails, Schroder said that <br />would affect the conditional use permit <br />The property has two separate septic units, one for the main residence and one for the <br />accessory’ structures. The septic units do not meet the separation requirements. <br />Peterson commented that normal inspections occur every two years. This property, <br />according to Peterson, should be inspected more often. <br />Schroder moved, Lindquist seconded, for approval of a studio within the oversized <br />accessory structure, subject to conditions of the CUP with inspections of existing relevant <br />sy stem every two months to show its capability in handling the increased usage. A charge <br />will be incurred by the applicant for extra inspection time. <br />Gaflfron remarked that the earliest date for sewering of the property would be the end of ^ <br />19% ‘ Is Staffs sense that the septic is not running out onto the ground, but noted the 3* <br />sepa, h% .1 is not met. It is pos.sible that the system may not be able to handle the usable <br />was 'ring this period of time If this is found to be true, the septic would need to be <br />pi. . ed ' on a regular basis. <br />There were no public comments. <br />.Ayes 6, Nays 0. <br />Mabusth commented on an issue with tree removal in the 0-75’ zone for waterproofing of <br />a tunnel that was not approved by Staff All of the eanh around the tunnel was moved <br />during the waterproofing process Staff will ask for replanting of these trees Crawford <br />commented that the elms were deteriorated, and tree roots were extending into the tunnel. <br />Part of the tunnel encroaches the 0-75' setback An amended application will be coming <br />before the Planning Commission on this issue and is not part of this application <br />(#10) #2049 FRED GUTFORMSON AND CHIC DW IGHT, 1220 TONKAVVA <br />ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 9:25-9:48 P.M. <br />The Certificate of .Mailing and Affidavit of Publication w ere noted. <br />12
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.