06-28-1993 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Memo June 18, 1993 Pace 2 The "Statement of Need and Reasonableness " (Exnibil C) dated August 1988 is the DNR’s document justifying the state-wide standards. Pages 60 and 6i of this documeni indicate the reasoning behind requiring upgrades ot nonconforming septic sy>tems. To assist Cities in adoptir.g ordinances consistent with the state rules, DNR distributed a model Shoreland Ordinance (Exhibit D). That model ordinance suggested language requiring all private sewage treatment systems to meet or exceed MPCA s Chapter 7080 standards. On pace 34 of the model ordinance, the suggested language for dealing with nonconforming sewage treatment systems again indicates that sewage systems not meeting the requirements "must be upgraded, at a minrmum, at any time a permit or variance of any type is required for any improvement on, or use of, the property. For the purposes of this provision, a sewage treatment system shall not be considered nonconforming if the only deficiency is the sewage treatment system ’s improper setback from the ordinary high water level. The model ordinance goes on to suggest that upgrading or replacement of nonconfonning systems identified by our program must occur within a reasonable period of time which will not exceed two years. It again identifies systems with less than the required separation above ground water per Chapter 708u as being considered nonconforming. Note that since Orono has always had a one year timeframe for replacement of nonconforming systems, we adopted a one year timeframe in the Shoreland Ordinance instead of the f.vo year period. Exhibit E excerpted from our Shoreland Ordinance shows that our language is indeed consistent with the DNR requirements. Exhibit F, excerpted from Chapter 7080, is the MPCA Rule 7080.0060 which defines that "systems with less than 3’ of unsaturated soil or sand between the distribution device and the limiting soil characteristics shall be considered nonconforming". Exhibit G is the definition which the City adopted for nonconforming systems, which is consistent with the DNR standard. Exhibit G also indicates that existing nonconforming systems must be replaced by "code" systems whenever such classification is reasonably obtainable. Although not defined in the code, from a policy standpoint staff has determined that reasonably obtainable generally means " is feasible within the boundaries of the property , and the cost of the system should not generally be a factor in determining reasonableness. Our Section 12.30, Subdivision 8 (B)(4) dictates that owners of nonconforming systems be issued orders requiring maintenance, repair, alteration or replacement, and those systems found to be nonconforming shall be brought up to conforming status within one calendar year from the date of the order. Similar language has been in our code since 1978 or earlier.