My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-23-1990 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1990
>
07-23-1990 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2024 2:17:32 PM
Creation date
11/19/2024 2:14:31 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.
/
303
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
Wojcik <br />July 2, 1990 <br />Page 2 <br />On the adjacent property, soil conditions required that a mound <br />system be used. There simply isn't enough area within applicant's <br />property that meets the code criteria for a mound system or even a <br />trench system, if soil conditions allowed. <br />The main question to be answered here is whether allowing the <br />proposed additions will increase the load on the existing substandard <br />septic system, possibly causing it to fail. Staff believes that the <br />additional bathroom will tend to increase the short term rates of flow <br />into the system, while not necessarily increasing the amounts of that <br />flow initially. However, the expansion makes the house that much more <br />liveable by a larger family, and this could ultimately lead to greater <br />amounts of sewage to be treated. If the system fails, while interim <br />solutions might be considered, the ultimate result could be a holding <br />tank system. <br />Because the property is within the Stubbs Bay Study Area, there <br />is a potential for municipal sewer to be provided in the area. Staff <br />is currently working to prepare materials to be sent to the <br />neighborhood to survey the interest for such a project. Obviously, if <br />sewer was provided to this property, the septic issue would be <br />eliminated. <br />The applicant has not provided a survey, since there is no point <br />in spending the money until there is a determination by the Council <br />whether the additions will be allowed. There is a possibility that <br />the proposed additions will be slightly less than the 30' required <br />side setback, which would require a variance. Again, applicant would <br />not request a variance (if necessary) until he has direction from the <br />Council regarding the additions. <br />Options for Action <br />Council wo*, id appear to have the following options regarding this <br />property: <br />1. Approve the additions as proposed. <br />2. Approve the additions except eliminating the second <br />bathroom. <br />3. Deny the additions until such time that sewe. is available. <br />4. If full or partial approval is granted, some or all of the <br />following conditions of approval could be considered: <br />a. Require applicant to sign sewer petition/appeal waiver. <br />This does not guarantee sewer will go in, but removes <br />another potential obstacle.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.