Laserfiche WebLink
, . � <br /> . � cit� o� oR,oNo <br /> � <br /> _. • r ' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI L <br /> - ,,.. .., NO. 2097 <br /> ���z� • <br /> • � • • <br /> �� B) Repair or reconstruction of individual systems. <br /> C) Replacement of existing systems with new individual <br /> systems constructed to new City (WPC-40 ) standards. <br /> The appYicants' on-site evaluator, Steve Schirmers, and the <br /> City's on-site septic manager confirm that the existing <br /> system cannot be expanded nor a new system instal Yed that <br /> would meet all standards nor with any assurance that such a <br /> system would provide continuous service in the future. <br /> D) Installation of innovative on-site systems including <br /> consideration of composting or incinerating devices. <br /> The City has yet to find this a real alternative. The <br /> system would not be effective with a high water user as a . <br /> kennel operation. . <br /> • E) Installation of individual holding tanks with off-site <br /> disposal. <br /> The expense of adequate maintenance of ho].ding tanks is not <br /> economical ly practical or feasibYe in Iight of the location <br /> of the interceptor within applicants' property. The current <br /> system serving the- house, installed in 1975, is already <br /> inadequate on this severYy limited property. ' <br /> F) Installation of a collection system and a community <br /> drainfield. 4 <br /> � The property is surrounded by large acred lots with no <br /> record of septic problems. The property is bordered by ` <br /> railroad on the south, U.S. Highway 12 on the north, Stubbs <br /> Bay Road on the west and an extensive wetlands to the east. <br /> A collection system and community or shared drainfield is <br /> � not feasible. <br /> 5. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on <br /> May 19, 1986, and recommended approval of the proposed variance <br /> based upon the following findings: <br /> A) The applicants' property presents a unique situation and <br /> is not typical of the surrounding large acred lots. <br /> • B) The applicants' . reputation in the operation of their <br /> commercial kennel is excelYent and the City wishes to <br /> cooperate in keeping such an asset within the community. <br /> _ _ � Page 2 of 5 <br />