Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING <br />HELD SEPTEMBER 14, 1992 <br />ZONING FILE #1757 - CONT. <br />Gaffron reviewed why the new shoreland regulations have more <br />restrictive standards than previous codes. He explained that for <br />about 15 years there has been a standard for all new systems that <br />if there is mottling present, which is an indicator in the soil <br />that there is a seasonal perched water table, a 3’ separation above <br />the mottling is required. The DNR and the PCA mandated that any <br />existing system that does not meet that separation is considered <br />a non*conform Ing system, and in shoreland areas, the DNR has said <br />those systems must be made conforming. <br />Gaffron explained that staff does not have all the facts regarding <br />the septic system lor the guest house, and absent testing in the <br />immediate area of the system, staff has had to lock at testing done <br />on the remainder of the property which indicates mound systems <br />would be required. He said the logical thing to do would be to hire <br />a site evaluator to do soil borings at the site of the existing <br />drainfield to aetermina its relationship to the mottling elevation. <br />Manser stated the rules keep changing and felt the City should not <br />continue to hold up the subdivision process because of this issue. <br />He said he would b© happy to hKe an evaluator. <br />Jabbour asked if the system is now considered Illegal non­ <br />conform i ng. <br />Gaffron stated by definition, the system is non-conforming and <br />cannot stay that way based on the new shoreland requIrements. <br />Taylor Indicated the definition of a conforming system Is one built <br />to codes not withstanding its location. <br />Barrett opined that if the City decides to change Its rules, they <br />must add an obligat on to provide for non-conforming structures, <br />and if that is not provided for. It might be considered a taking <br />of property. However, the regulatory values imposed by the DNR, PCA <br />and the City with respect to shoreland property, may involve a <br />public interest which is high enough to allow the City to regulate <br />even non-conforming uses and require them to be upgraded. <br />Jabbour asked if they have a way to allow the subdivision to <br />continue \.ondltionec upon the applicant providing the Information <br />required to prove the system Is either conforming or non­ <br />conforming .