06-21-1982 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

% ^ ’• V i 11^. EXHIBIT /I TO: FROM: OATS: SUBJECT : Jeanne A* Mabusth^ Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Septic System Inspector June 1982 #685 Charles Kroghess - Subdivision - Septic System Review I have reviewed the proposed subdivision and wish to make the following coimnents: Lot 1 (new lot) - Primary and alternate sites were tested# with percolation rates averaging 7*4 and 5.7 mpi respectively. Water table depth ranged from 3.7 ft to 5.8 ft or deeper# hence shallow trenches would be recommended# as well as runoff and groundwater diversions uphill from the system# assuming house location does not change. Lot 2 • Existing house with existing system. Existing system was inspected in 1981 and appeared to be in operable condition. An alternate site has been tested and is suitable for a standard dralnfield. One problem does present itself# however. At least one dralnfield line protrudes approximately 15-20* into the proposed new lot at a point where the new house would presumably be located. Orono code requires a 20* setback for dralnfield from property lines# although only 10* is normally enforced where reasonable to do so. For this subdivision# since the existing dralnfield would be very close to the proposed new house# t%ro options present themselves: 1 - Rearrange lot lines to give the 10* setback. This «rould severely limit the area where the proposed house could be located. 2 -Cut off the existing dralnfield to a point at least 10* back from the proposed lot line- then add an equivalent amount of dralnfield downhill on Lot 2. While it may seem unreasonable to remove an existing functional dralnfield becuase it is over the lot line# it is equally unreasonable to expect a future o%mer of Lot 1 to allow treatment of his neighbors sewage on his lot. Futhermore# the expected runoff from a house on Lot 1# as well as construction fill £md disturbance# might possibly disrupt the proper fxinctioning of that portion of dralnfield anyway. One problem that may crop up is that by cutting off the end of the dralnfield# the soil disturbance may create a seepage point if the line fills up. My recommendation is that the entire line (or lines) be abandoned and the equivalent or more of new dralnfield be constructed further south# where the effect of added runoff will be lessened. (While allowing the lines to be merely shortened would be acceptable if %fe knew Mr. Krogness would continue to own the existing house# we should not take the chance that dralnfield changes made necessary by the subdivision cause a future problem for a new owner of the existing house). I;J