09-08-1997 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r r f MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 25,1997 (^^18 - Appeal of Administrative Decision for Drainfieid Location - Continued) Kelley asked what the fects were and why Staff believes those withLn the shoreland area should conform. Gaflfron responded that the DNR informed the City to make sure that the systems be upgraded and allow one year to comply. Kelley asked where the DNR now stands on the issue. Gaffi’on said he did not know. Jabbour indicated there are more fmling ^ems in the out-state area. He said all of the residences should be allowed the 10 year grace period. Weckman responded that there is not much debate regarding the 3' separation and is only a financial matter. He indicated it is Council's prerogative to change the code but noted that the 1000' shoreland regulations were to protect the lake. He mdicated the code has always stipulated the 3' separation but allowed those not meeting it to be grandfathered in. Goetten asked how often the septic systems would be checked for sewage emering the lake if the code was changed in the shoreland area as suggested. Weckman said he has reviewed all .systems installed prior to 197.3 and is continuing on the remaining systems in checking for the 3' separation. Goetten asked what would trigger Weckman to take the next step in checking for discharge. Weckman stud he inspects all systems eveiy 2-3 for ^ling ^sterns. Jabbour noted that the Eastmans have a non-conforming ^em, not a failing system. Weckman indicated that it may be a matter of semantics as the State considers a system not meeting the 3' separation as failing while the City calls that non-conforming. A system that is discharging is called a imminent health hazard according to the State and called failing by the City. Jabbour polled the Council and questioned whether the policy requiring a two-year I^od for septic system replacement in the shoreland district could be changed at this time. Gafifron informed him that revising the Shoreland Regulations arc part of the Zoning Ordinance requires Planning Commission review and a public hearing. K^ey said the City should go ahead with the zoning ordinance amendment process. He indicated the City is sewering more and more, and people are being caught up within the policy as the 1000' line gne.s through their properties Goetten acknowledged that the cost of a new sj'stem tvould be tremendous for the Eastmans, though acknowledged that economics should not be a consideration. Gafiiron asked to clarify to the Council that there is no connection between the property in question and sewering Saga Hill area due to the distance and topography. Jabbour suggested the Eastmans wait on installmg a new system. Kelley noted that the same concern will occur elsevriiere. 25