01-25-2016 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 11, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 14 of 24 14. MARIANI REQUEST TO EXPAND MUSA BOUNDARY (continued) Gaffron indicated there is a process that would need to be followed. Gaffron stated when he initially spoke with Freya Thamman with the Metropolitan Council, she indicated that there is a possibility that the City would be very close to the three units per acre requirement. In order to expand the MUSA, the Metropolitan Council expects the density to remain above 3.0 units per acre and that this property is low density. Barnhart stated the calculation is very close and that it comes down to how it is calculated, to be verified when staff meets with the Met Council rep later this month. McMillan stated one thing she does not have knowledge on is the Type 3 system and how it differs from a Type I system. Barnhart stated primarily the main difference is that a Type 3 is a Type I system modified and that any separation changes or different construction methods would trigger a Type 3 system. Barnhart indicated most people are familiar with a Type I system and do not have the same reporting requirements as Type I’s. Mariani stated cost is one as well as longevity of the system. A Type 3 system could last a year. Mariani indicated the system would also need to be looked at every six months to a year. Mariani stated when he was going to purchase the property, the previous owners submitted the plans to the City, paid the consulting fees, and then it was approved by the City. Mariani stated if the lot rearrangement had not been approved, they would have paid approximately $175,000 less for the property. Mariana stated had they known a Type III system was required, they would have negotiated on the price. McMillan stated one of the big issues is expanding the MUSA and that it is not easy for the City to do that. McMillan stated she feels bad that this septic testing company did not do an accurate report but that the City does not verify what the septic testing company finds. McMillan commented she is not sure if there is any recourse in going back to the septic testing company. Mariani stated they are living there currently and that he is asking the City to do what is right for them. If a Type I system is not able to be constructed, he would like to hook up to city sewer. Mariani stated if he is required to put in a Type III system and it fails a couple of years later, he would be back in the same position. McMillan asked why Type III systems typically fail. Mariani stated there is a pretty big significance between a Type 1 and a Type III system and that the city septic inspector could explain that. Mariani stated he is being put at a disadvantage and that he is not looking to pay less than what he agreed to. Printup asked what the City can do to protect other citizens from this particular septic testing company. Gaffron stated the state certifies the designers and that the City relies on that certification. Gaffron stated in his view the property owner has the ability to go back after that contractor for some relief. Gaffron indicated the city inspector has been in contact with the state on a number of occasions to find out what sanctions can be put on this person. The contractor likely has an insurance policy.