My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-12-1996 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
11-12-1996 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/28/2012 4:22:06 PM
Creation date
12/28/2012 4:22:06 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 12, 1996 <br />• ( #9 - Engineer's Report Feasibility Study - Continued) <br />Jabbour indicated that the property owner should not have the right to appeal the cost. <br />Kelley agreed. Jabbour went on to say that the City had taken the direction that the area <br />was not to be a hot spot. He indicated that while it was said to be the intent of the owner <br />to preserve trees by installing the sewer, the sewer installation would disturb the land and <br />result in the loss of many trees. Jabbour said he would support adding this property <br />owner to the list but wanted to clarify these points. <br />Callahan noted that the City can determine not to build the sewer if the costs become too <br />high. <br />Radio stated that the property owner has no right to the sewer. But if he wants his <br />property to become connected, he would have to pay full cost, and it would not be forced <br />on him. The decision to connect and pay the required cost would lie with the property <br />owner. <br />Kelley questioned whether it was a good policy to sewer two areas separated by another <br />development which is not planned for sewer. Moorse reported that the development in <br />question has septic and alternate sites. He noted, ideally, sewer would serve the <br />development but it would not be forced on them. Kelley relayed a hypothetical question <br />of septic failure to such properties. Cook said if the properties failed, there would be <br />• plans in place to connect them into the system. These properties would be assessed for <br />lateral and trunk charges. <br />• <br />Callahan indicated there were a limited number of sewer units available, and the City is <br />bound by the MUSA application. <br />It was noted that this area, as well as the Maresh property, are not located within the <br />MUSA boundary and would be considered as part of the extra 50 sewer units available. <br />The applications would be considered on an individual basis. Cook added that it was <br />their plan to provide for such possibilities noting the area could be accommodated quite <br />easily. He noted changes could be made to lift stations at a reasonable cost. <br />Kelley asked if sewer did go to this area on West Farm Road, would it become necessary <br />to take the road as a public road. Both Cook and Moorse indicated that it would not be <br />necessary to do so and easements may be taken for the sewer. <br />Jabbour informed the Council members that they need to look at the policies established <br />rather than going through the whole process for each application. Jabbour said the <br />Council should take the position that sewer will not be provided unless the public health <br />and welfare were in jeopardy and not for purposes of property division and individual <br />benefit. <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.