Laserfiche WebLink
, <br /> ~ <br /> To: Brian Fulmer and Jeanne Mabusth <br /> From: Michael P. Gaffron , Assistant Zoning Administrator <br /> Date: September 20, 1984 <br /> Subject: Soil And Site Conditions For Dog House Kennel Proposal <br /> Re: Septic Systems <br /> - Site west of garage slab is not nearly big enough for a mound <br /> or any system. <br /> - Garage slab is over existing dCgi[lfield serving the house! My <br /> official recommendation is that the garage slab be removed. <br /> - Because of 75' well setback, there is very little alternate <br /> drainfield potential at this site, and what little there is <br /> should be preserved for alternate site to serve existing house. <br /> - Site east of proposed kennel was bored by Gchermers and found <br /> to be fill material over peat/organic soils. Water table on <br /> 9/17/84 was at 3 ' +/- during the driest time this year. <br /> Schermers noted that the soil was mottled to the surface and <br /> likely would be saturated to very near surface in the spring. He <br /> indicated he would not want to recommend even a mound without a <br /> better knowledge of the high seasonal water table, probably by <br /> monitoring a number of inspection wells for a year. <br /> - In a conversation with Dr. James L. Anderson of the U. of M. <br /> Agrculture Extension Service, he suggested that the existing <br /> kennel system be investigated further to determine how well it is <br /> functioning, and relate it 's effluent quality in the tank to what <br /> might be found with a human waste load. <br /> - Our code requires "extensively detailed site and soil <br /> evaluations" on fill soils, and where peat soils are encountered, <br /> would allow a system under only the most extreme conditions due <br /> to existing lgt gg[lfiggEgtign. The City is under no obligation <br /> to approve a system on these soils. If a system was allowed, it <br /> would be subject to metering of inflows and periodic groundwater <br /> quality testing. I do not believe the City should allow a new <br /> system to be constructed for a new or expanded use unless the <br /> minimum acceptable soil conditions exist, so that we aren 't <br /> creating g U@Lq QCgblg[D where none appears to exist now. <br /> - As for the existing kennel system, we have been repeately told <br /> that no animal fecal materials are introduced into the system, <br /> and that the only discharge is from spraying out the kennel <br /> stalls and from dog wash water , hence we would expect a low- <br /> intensity effluent which might not form a sludge or a biomat. If <br /> this is found to be the case, and no apparent problems with <br /> groundwater quality or liquid volume disposal are noted, I would <br /> feel fairly comfortable in allowing this type of a system to be <br /> installed for the kennel for the existing type of use, without <br /> the human sewage element, i .e. can 't hook up an apartment to it. <br /> 1 <br />