The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1993-12-13 94-46 ORDERCouncil Anion Doty December 13, 1993 I:em Np.94-46 Item/Subject: authorizing Construction of a Private Sewer -E tension - Mogan Bead Associates Responsible Department; gnglessering CCrnmentary: Bogan Road Associates has requested authorization to construct a private sewer mein to serve lots in the Hogan Bead Associates Subdivision which was approved by the Planning Board on March 2, 1993. The private sewer would be installed in utility a mens reserved On the Subdivision w Plan, and would connect to the so-called existing BMPPI sanitary sewer located along the northerly end of the property. Although each lot could connect individually to the public sewer n the opposite side of Bogan Bead, shorter service lines to the proposed private sewer main is considered preferable.to four service crossings on Hogan Road which w ently reconstructed. A sketch showing the location of the proposed privatesewer is attached. c.d' LSanas. .TS Comments: V Ci:Y MvmSn ZsQcI InfInformsiion: a Budget Approval:FIT ' �Faa=eee D.."I Lecal Approval (JN^( e'/'f(ae Cary sohcrtee passage or Psve _ Of Fiat Resting ❑Referral Assigned to Councilor Blanchette December 13, 1993 CITY OF BANGOR (TITLE) (Orbert ... A11[hpzdarlug..cauumatipv of a...Privata Sewer extension ... By the Cory OnamR of Ma City of Ba .- ORDERED, MT Hogan Road Associates is hereby authorized to construct a private 8 inch diameter sewer to s e lots in the Hogan Brad Associates Subdivision. Said private ewer to connect t to the existing HAVTI sewer and extend in southerly es Subdivision within [M1e autilitypproved easements Ba ehoxn n Pthe lanning Road March 2, Associates Subdlviaion Plan approved bthe Bangor Planning Board on March 2. 1993. In City Council December 13, 1993 Motion for Passage Councilor Blanchette second by Councilor Tyler Order Passed eo e 94-46 ORDER Title, Authorizing Construction of A Private Sever Extension ............... 4...... 4....... Sever Extension Hogan Road Associates ................................. ... DD Ae®pied mQ—�,7/; Councilman 31v�5 oN '� N �1 '� �W__� 5 - 5 _ _ f _J yBM3$ �.v 9„`�� ayo2� -gt.�h„us Nd9 o1-{ - ww 1 ' � � ® Q, 1 1 1�m y N NotSiniannS S'�1vi�oSS� Q� N��N- ti i � _- �'O Nf/'pH$ V Lbwa� Ja��un �. i T ' lY f .� L ea+2 Mti �� /vim\1Li'1 \V No�S bem95 , -�rn�vN>�3aN�v�.1 ra315v� _J L___ _ ___ ________ _(�s_ _ - � {'�fy�bri .SONO cl:,.�;u.,;;, _a�.�. c•.n . `i. r Y > 1 r r 111 !!r ' - �� Dick Cattails (C.O. 94-46) oedember 13, 1991 Tape Az Side H "At one time I was a ember 1n the partnership that owned that parcel. I a o longer ember. Idor lee a represent the partnership, and probably of r anybody that's In that partnership o associated with that partnership has the most intimate £amillarry with the history ofit. And similar to the fact that the Neighborhood Coalition really has no quarrel with the development; I can say from my perspective, I don't have any quarrel with the Neighborhood association. It's just that it appears that we have gotten different kinds of feeling and answers from very similar questions over a number years. 1 was first, associated with this piece of property when we negotiated with John Darling to purchase it and it was s to same degreespectulative purchase. This e In '88, I believe, When almost anything could happen with any piece of real estate. Wouldn't it be wonderful if that bad never happened? However, in conjunction with the purchase, before the purchase, after the purchase, i asked everybody I could think of... those I should be asking—as to what could be done with the property or Curb cuts. _ I recognized that there was astrip of land that v zoned differently and I always got the s ..Mate strip zoned differently cut did not preclude a curb cut. This s City Engineers, City Solicitors, from Planning Departments. Idon't know If the DOT ever gave we an opinion on that or not. Initially we had no real plans of doing a curb cut on Mount Hope Avenue because r Initial thoughts were to utilize a development scheme that would utilize the entire eleven acres. As the economy went south so did those kind of plane and it finally got so that the financial burden of holding that piece of property dictated an alternative approach and the alternative approach was to subdivide, the property rather than Having one development scheme and subdivide the property and sell the individual lots to individual users. So Snonjunctlon with that pro r we get into the issue as to what are the criteria for an approvable subdivision, one of which, obviously, is that the lots have to be able t0 be accessed from a public rigbt-of-way... So that led to e discussion about curb cuts. And that discussion took place with the DOT and with the City, from the Planning Department and from the engineering perspective. And for any practical subdividing into lots we ended up with a situation where we from a planning perspective, unable to a corner s the c lot from Hogan Road of the proximity of a curb cut to the intersection. Or . The only alternative that wewere e really given to access those two lots was a common curb cut off of Mount Hope Avenue. Thencnecessity to have aaccess, a private drive e going any further than just to access those two lots c about with a purchase - intent on the part of State Farm. State Sam originally wanted to be on the corner. Thesame reason most people want to be on the c A o e lot n the corner wasn't practical. We moved them over t0 where inwas practical. They said thats fine but you've got to give us access to the rear of the lot off from Mount Hope. Mat's the only reason for any drive being proposed to go any further than just to access Lots One 6 We. At the same time we were faced with the necessity for providing sewer. We had a decision to make In 1990 in conjunction with the reconstruction project n Hogan Road. The DOT as" to us as property Cam - said do youwant to put any laterals across Hagan Road at this point. Son thoughts at that timer were that whatever we wanted to do we could use that eight inch line that we, and everybody else Dick Cattails December 13, 1993 -2- (C.O. 94-46) tape 82 Side g at the time, thought v city line. Sow opted not to put any laterals across Hogan Head, understanding that not doing that meant that v would be faced with Five Year Pavemnet Cut Moratorium, after that construction which is roughly three years into that moratorium. - So in order to develop these Iota at all we needed to provide the sewer In the back. Not with any intent for that right-of-way to have any through function at all. The fact. that the easement on the sub-diviaiun plan says that its to potentially access Lot Four, was just from a planning standpoint on our perspective. When we do a plan like that you look at maximising your alternatives not because it was with any specific intent. To get to the issue that your'r really faced with, Io a that there's no connection between allowing us, and it would be really a detriment to developer and to possibly to development of a tax -paying property, in theState Fact Project to preclude being able to sewer that lot. And I certainly don't think that It has any direct bearing o Apparently it is going t be an on going issue about the curb cut on to Mount Nape Avenue. It's only appropriate in considering these kinds of things from different prospective¢ that we member that there are a number of prospectives and sometimes only asmall portion of those prospectives that are really at odds, 1 think basically we havec , , goals. (C'.O. 94-46) Dick Cattelie and Councilor Baldacci December 13. 1993 Tape 82, Side B Councilor Baldacci " My question is , and I think you mentioned this, but i just want everybody to understand, that approval of this s extension, utility easement you said earlier not going. to be used a thmughfaref it's just for the purpose of putting this sewer in, is that correct? ' Mr. Cattell¢ "It's not for a road." Mr. Baldacci " You don't see it as any type of opening the door to accessing Mount Nope Avenel" Nr. Cattelle "NO." Nr. Baldacci "No4'Okay, thank you.'