Laserfiche WebLink
. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />HELD MARCH 16, 1992 <br />ZONING FILE #1721 — CONT. <br />Meridith Howell and Clifford Swenson were present to represent the <br />applicant. <br />Mabusth explained the property proposed for a 5 lot subdivision is <br />now located within the new shoreland area of the City. The <br />shoreline of Tanager Lake has been determined at 929.4'; setbacks <br />for septic sites would be 75' from the lake; and setbacks for <br />structural improvements are 100' from the OHWL. She noted the <br />wetland on the other side of the property has a required structural <br />setback of 26' from the wetland and septic at 75'. She indicated <br />that the guest house encroaches the required lakeshore setback as <br />well as the septic system. The guest house would be either <br />required to connect to the system of the main residence or install <br />its own new system. She stated that the wetland to the west of the <br />east drive has not been designated as a wetland but the City would <br />request a drainage easement over that area. She noted the road does <br />not encroach the wetland based on 1' contours provided by the <br />surveyor. Wetlands have been designated at 932.3' elevation. <br />Bellows asked the elevation of the center of Fox Street. <br />Mabusth indicated that elevation to be approximately 934'. She <br />• noted that a culvert under the railroad track had recently been <br />unplugged, thus reducing the elevation of the wetland by .4' She <br />stated that even i f the wet I and to the west i s not a des i gnated <br />wetland, it still functions as an overflow retention area and will <br />be designated as drainage easement. <br />Chair Kelley asked if the tennis court was proposed to be removed. <br />Howell stated that was not proposed. <br />Bellows informed her that since the tennis court encroaches the <br />wetland area, the City may not grant approval of improvements to <br />the court, and noted that was also true for the garage. <br />Chair Kelley asked why a variance was required for Lot 1. <br />Mabusth explained that the lot line between Lots 1 and 2 could be <br />redesigned so variances would not be required. <br />Chair Kelley asked about the guest house. <br />Mabusth stated that any improvements to the guest house would <br />require variance approval. She indicated that a condition in the <br />approving resolution could deal with the options of the septic <br />system for this structure. <br />3 <br />