My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-09-1990 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1990
>
04-09-1990 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/18/2024 2:20:56 PM
Creation date
10/18/2024 2:18:58 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
457
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
B. Adequacy - Even with 2 full acres, that acerage may <br />not have adequate septic sites available. <br />C. Experience - If there has been a history of problems <br />with the system, it woul.^ be appropriate that the <br />property be sewered unless it could be proven that <br />suitable alternate sites exist on the property. <br />Proximity - Given the proximity to a sewer line <br />anything abutting it in this area would be appropriate <br />to served. <br />The issue boils down to where the appropriate line is drawn. The <br />result of the analysis contained as Attachment B indicates which <br />properties could be excluded at the 2 acre level under specific <br />conditions. All the others are recommended for inclusion as they <br />are below 2 acres and in close proximity to the sewer. <br />Issue #2 <br />Related Issues <br />A. East of Leaf Street - The properties had previously <br />not been included in the study area analysis. However, <br />as indicated in Attachment B most are substandard older <br />systems, and have questionable replacement capabilities. <br />The cost of construction to include them is <br />substantially less than their prorata share of the <br />project. <br />B. Blanche Propelty - Mr. Blanche had indicated his <br />concern as to service to his property. An alternative <br />has been developed to avoid this screening removal that <br />he was concerned with and as such could be appropriately <br />included in the project. (Part of this issue was that <br />the main stub that would go along Bayside would serve <br />only him at a rather substantial cost. The City can <br />either do that or a separate private service to the main <br />on Westlake Street.) <br />Policy Alternatives <br />Issue #1 - <br />j. Include all the properties in the original study area <br />subdivision. <br />2. Exempt all the properties that have requested. <br />3. Exempt selected properties under specified conditions of <br />proving capability to solve future problems on site. <br />4. Charge properties a trunk charge rather than a lateral charge <br />with specifications aid conditions for when a lateral is to be <br />constructed.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.