08-09-1993 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M PHONE NO. STATE OF ^DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES WATERS, 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 (612) 772-7916 .T FILE MeJ AUG .5 'igta- August A, 1993 Mr. Mike Gaffron Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator City of Orono city Hall, P.O. Box 66 - - Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Dear Mike: GUIDANCE ON IDENTlfYlNG AND UPGRADING NONCONFORMING SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS IN SrIOKELAND AREAS In response to your request, I am going tc repeat the specific part of the statewide shoreiand management rules which addresses this topic. Minnesota Rules 6120.3400, entitled Sanitary Provisions, in Subpart 3. D. states in part that "Local governments must develop and implement programs to identify and upgrade sewage treatment systems that are inconsistent with the sewage treatment system design criteria , . . These programs must require reconstruction of existing nonconforming sewage systems whenever a permit or variance of anv type is required for anv improvement on. or use of. the property . . . (My emphasis added). You asked me to briefly put in writing my experience with and understanding of this particular part of the shoreiand rules. I think this language is very clear in stating that whenever a developer of shoreiand property applies for any type of permit, the owner/developer of that property is required to provide information that any sewage treatment system to be used on that property conforms with the state's standards. These standards, with the exception of system setback from the ordinary high water level, are contained in the applicable rules of the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, specifically chapter 7080 for individual sewage treatment systems. The justification for this requirement is further explained in an enclosure I have excerpted and highlighted from the Statement of Need and Reasonableness that DNR was required to provide in August 1988 prior to the State's adoption of the statewide shoreiand management rules. I feel this enclosure explains much of the rationale for requiring nonconforming systems to be upgraded whenever any type of permit is applied for. About the only case I can foresee where a local governmental unit may not require upgrading would be in cases where an existing structure may be damaged through no fault of the applicant. I*m thinking of events such as storms, malicious misconduct, vandalism, etc.. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER