Laserfiche WebLink
t. <br />r-: <br />i-<-r <br />e- <br />Ur <br />%I <br />m-wH: <br />f- <br />- <br />l?v.w <br />W'- <br />H'- <br />I r lWi^ <br />Memo <br />May 13, 1992 <br />Page 2 <br />4. Drainfield "B", after the 20' setback is removed is 60'x80’, <br />with slopes running diagonally through the site. Slopes <br />range from 6% (Orono's absolute upper limit for the original <br />slope underneath a mound) to 20% or more. A mound system <br />oriented correctly with the topography would either encroach <br />within inches of the house, or would have to be pushed to <br />the left into an area with 10-12% slopes, again too steep <br />for a mound system. <br />5.Based on the information above, it is my opinion that Ehalt <br />has at best one conformining drainfield site, not two, even <br />without the issue of house placement coming into the <br />picture. <br />6.If one were to designate the one conforming drainfield site <br />as the primary, and grant slope variances for a secondary <br />site at the front right corner of the lot (which is the only <br />other half way reasonable location for a secondary site), <br />then you would absolutely be forced to grant variances to <br />the 100* unsewered creek setback required as part of our <br />recent Shoreland Ordinance. Prior to the ordinance, it <br />likely would have been feasible to locate a house in the <br />back half of the property still meeting the 26* wetland <br />setback and the 20* mound system setback. <br />7.The soil survey indicates Kilkenny loam soils at this site. <br />It has been my experience that this soil type generally is <br />not suitable for trench type drainfield systems, but <br />normally mound systems will work adequately if located on <br />relatively flat areas, i.e. slopes of 6% or flatter. <br />Cooclaslon <br />No attempt has been made by Mr. Ehalt to have a prof ess iona 1 site <br />evaluator determine the legitimate feasibility of drainfield sites on <br />this property. His inaccurate sketch and lack of system design detail <br />is absolutely inadequate to prove anything about the buildability of <br />this property. <br />I would argue that unless the actual site topography is <br />significantly different than what is shown in our files, it will be <br />impossible for Mr. Ehalt or his consultant to come up with a site plan <br />that shows two conforming drainfield sites, and a house location <br />***ting current zoning standards. Further, even if the structural <br />setback from the creek was relaxed, there appears to be only one <br />conforming drainfield site on the property, not two. This lot in my <br />opinion would not meet the current requirements for buildability <br />without sewer. <br />i