Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2000 <br /> • (#2513 Connie Piepho, Continued) <br /> Pellizzer stated at this time he is not opposed to reaching some type of agreement with the <br /> Applicant. <br /> Weinberger stated some type of bond could possibly be posted with the City in favor of the adjoining <br /> property owner, which could be used to help pay for relocating of the well. Weinberger stated the <br /> bond would have to be attached to the property in the event a sale of the property should occur. <br /> Smith commented she would rather not see the City involved in an agreement of this type if at all <br /> possible. <br /> Movani stated in his view he does not see why the City would need to be involved. <br /> There were no further public comments. <br /> Hawn commented she would be willing to table this application to allow the Applicant time to try to <br /> reach an agreement with the adjoining property owner. <br /> Movani inquired whether they would need to appear before the Planning Commission again if an <br /> agreement is reached. Movani noted the prior application was approved. <br /> Hawn stated that approval may have expired. <br /> Movani stated he is unsure whether that approval has expired. <br /> • Weinberger stated he would prefer a new recommendation by the Planning Commission, noting that <br /> the previous approval required that a secondary septic site be identified, which has not been done. <br /> Movani commented they will need to find a secondary septic site. <br /> Hawn inquired whether the adjoining property owner had other available sites for a well. <br /> Pellizer indicated he does. <br /> Movani stated there are not available locations for the pool without a variance of some type. <br /> Weinberger stated the approval in August was based on the Applicant finding an alternate septic site. <br /> Hawn stated the Applicant will need to locate a secondary septic site before August 16 in order for <br /> the previous approval to still be in effect. <br /> Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would like the Planning Commission to table this application. <br /> Movani inquired whether they would need to come back before the Planning Commission if they <br /> meet all the necessary criteria. <br /> Hawn stated it will be necessary for them to appear before the Planning Commission again. <br /> Movani requested the application be tabled. <br /> Weinberger noted the Applicant submitted a letter requesting the 60 day statutory review period be <br /> waived <br /> Page 3 <br />