Laserfiche WebLink
' 'f , � <br /> MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,January 22,2008 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#07-3335 Douglas and Margaret Franchot, Continued) <br /> Staff feels there are alternative locations to consfruct the pool and pool building that would meet the <br /> setbacks as shown in Exhibit D3. In addition,the applicants have current and future septic needs to <br /> consider. Staff would argue that the applicants have reasonable use of the property and that providing <br /> for sewage treatment must be considered above a pool amenity. If there is not an appropriate location <br /> for a pool and septic treatment areas,the septic treatment areas must prevail. <br /> Considering the limited schedule for Planning Commission review, Staff felt it was reasonable to bring <br /> the variance request to the Planning Commission prior to receiving information regarding an alternate <br /> septic treatment site provided that the application does not move forward for final approval to the City <br /> Council until a secondary site is identified unless the recommendation from the Planning Commission is <br /> for denial. <br /> Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the five issues for consideration listed in the staff <br /> report. Staff recommends denial of the setback variance for the pool and pool building as requested as <br /> alternate locations are available. Should the Planning Commission feel that the proposed location is <br /> appropriate, a review of this application by the City Council should be delayed until an adequate <br /> secondary septic site is identified. <br /> Franchot stated their application lists the reasons why they feel the variance is justified. Franchot <br /> indicated that during their application,they have found the septic system is noncompliant and that they <br /> are agreeable to fixing their septic system as part of this process. The intent of the regulation to keep <br /> accessory structures behind a principal structure is to maintain a streetscape,which does not apply to <br /> their street since it is curvy. If the pool were located near the rear lot line, it would be more intrusive to <br /> the neighbors. <br /> Kempf asked whether the proposed septic site would allow the applicant to construct an in ground <br /> swimming pool between the proposed septic site and the home. <br /> Curtis stated it is possible depending on the location of the tanks. Currently the tanks are located near <br /> the front of the home. Curtis pointed out the location of the existing septic site on the overhead. <br /> Franchot indicated the tanks are to the right of the driveway. <br /> Curtis stated the tanks may need to be relocated. <br /> Franchot stated they are in the process of determining their options and that one contractor did indicate <br /> the tanks could remain in their present location,but that they are looking at a possible compliant <br /> location for the septic south of the driveway. At the present time they are unsure whether that site <br /> would prove to be acceptable. <br /> Kroeger noted an alternate septic site also needs to be established. <br /> Zullo stated she would like to see a final decision on the location of the septic system prior to maldng a <br /> decision on this application. <br /> PAGE 4 <br />