Laserfiche WebLink
• • >^vi'ti' V' <br />1#'^, <br />W-.;: <br />v" <br />• • <br />^rV!. , •>. <br />ffiillI- ^ <br />: »•>■ <br />^ m-. <br />MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING Cv IMISSION MEETING <br />HELD MARCH 16, 1992 <br />ZONING FILE #1721 - CONT. <br />Meridith Howell and Clifford Swenson were present to represent the <br />appIicant. <br />Mabusth explained the property proposed for a 5 lot subdivision i* <br />now located within ,he new shoreianc area of the City. The <br />shoreline of Tanager Lake has been deterniiined at 929.4’; setbacks <br />for septic sites wou i d be 75’ from the iake; and setbacks for <br />structural i irprovemen t s are 100’ f rom the OHWL. She noted the <br />wetland on the other side of the property has a required structural <br />setback of 26’ from the wetland and septic at 75’. She indicated <br />that the guest house encroaches the required lakeshore setback as <br />well as the septic system. The guest house would be either <br />required to connect to the system of the main residence or instalI <br />it' own new system. She stated that the wetland to the west of the <br />east drive has not been designated as a wetland but the City would <br />request a drainage easement over that area. She noted tne road does <br />not encroach the wetland oaseu on 1 ’ contours provided by the <br />surveyor. Wetlands have been designated at 932.3’ elevation. <br />Bellows asked the elevation of the center of Fox Street. <br />Mabusth Indicated that elevation to be approximately 934’. She <br />noted that a culvert under the rai I road track had rec.;ntly been <br />unplugged, thus reducing the elevation of the wetland by .4’ She <br />stated that ever if the wetland to the west is not a designated <br />wetland, it still functions as an overflow retention area and wil‘ <br />be designated as drainage easement. <br />Chair Kelley .^sked if the tennis court was proposed to be removed. <br />Howell stated that was not proposed. <br />Bellows Informed her that since the tennis cour* encroaches the <br />wetland area, the City may not grant approval of improvements to <br />the court, and noted that was aiso true for the garage. <br />Chair Kelley asked why a variance was required for Lot 1. <br />Mabusth explained that the lot line between Lots i and 2 could be <br />- designed so variances would not be required. <br />cnalr Kelley asked about the guest house. <br />Mabusth stated that any improvements to the guest house would <br />require variance approval. She indicated that a condition in the <br />approving resolution could deal with the options of the septic <br />system for th'S structure.