Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING <br />HELD JULY 12, 1993 <br />RASMUSSEN REQUEST - CONT. <br />Moorse explained the buyer of the property requested septic <br />certification, which was done and the inspector found the system <br />did not meet the 3’ separation, which was reported on the <br />certIfication. <br />Rasmussen stated the most recent inspection was done in July 1991 <br />and the system was found to be adequate at that time. The later <br />change in the ordinance created the problem. He said they are not <br />asking the Council to say the e<isting systern is conforming with <br />the 1992 standards, but merely requesting a variance to those <br />standards as the system is a functional system. <br />Moorse said the City has always had the 3’ separation requirement, <br />but did not enforce in prior years if the system was functioning. <br />Rasmussen stated when the system was originally installed there was <br />a larger than 3’ separation. but due to the mottled soil <br />requirement, the system is now considered non-conforming. <br />Jabbour clarified the system was installed in 1978, and in 1979 the <br />standards were adopted but not forced upon existing systems. In <br />1992 with the adoption of Shoreland Management regulations, the <br />City decided it would become tougher on enforcement of the <br />standards and all systems in the City will be requI red to meet the <br />stricter standards. <br />Neaton said as a practical matter this issue will surface again <br />when the new owners wish to improve the property, but he felt the <br />current owners should not have to bear the cost of a new system <br />because the current system is functioning and was legal when built <br />and should therefore be grandfathered. <br />Mayor Callahan opposed the term grandfathered. <br />Jabbour said he has a problem in the past with the terms legal non- <br />conforming versus illegal non-conforming. When a buiiding is <br />standing up and a new ordinance is adopted that makes the building <br />non-conforming, should the building be removed? He said he has <br />justified in his mind that somehow non-conforming means it becomes <br />a detriment to the public health and welfare. He said just because <br />his septic system has been found co be dumping some residue into <br />the lake does not mean that le has the right to forever after <br />continue to do so. He saic there may be some justification in <br />allowing the home to be sold with the current system anticipating <br />improvements to the property when the new owners take ownership.