Laserfiche WebLink
-.V --1' ■*< ■; !'K'^•^f./v, >/;illiipcr- artily 22, 1992^ r' ..-■fw * <br />A synopsis of the proposed connection requirements is as follows; <br />Mm <br />sSSi". ■ <br />fcisftr> : <br />0§m <br />^■• '■ ■ <br />Connection Deadline (From Date Project is Declared Available for <br />Connections): <br />90 days: <br />Failing systems <br />Bolding tanks <br />16 Months: <br />■' ' ' <br />Drainfields less than 3' above OHW of Stubbs Bay <br />Drainfields less than 75* from Stubbs Bay or less <br />than 75* from Stubbs Bay Creek <br />Drainfields less than State minimum 50' separation <br />from a well <br />^4/.::^-,5 ■ <br />5 Years: <br />Properties <br />categories <br />not in one of the 90 day or 16 month <br />Other: <br />5 V- , <br />4'- <br />MB00-' <br />Systems that fail during the 5 year period will <br />have to connect in 90 days <br />Systems declared non-conforming due to a permit- <br />or variance-triggered inspection will have to <br />connect in 1 year. <br />w ' ferhaps the one listed requirement that could be arguable is the <br />day holding tank connection. In past projects, we have allowed the <br />i^fttll 16 month period for holding tanks. Usually, the economics of <br />miaBOUts will dictate whether the owner of a holding tank connects it <br />?w4^t away or waits the full 16 months. We can leave this at 90 days <br />dr allow the full 16 montlis, whichever Council feels is most <br />appropriate <br />»■ ^ <br />iitaf f laoomiMaidatioii <br />City Attorney Tom Barrett has reviewed the draft format and finds <br />it acceptable. His only caution is that this will set a precedent for <br />^^aimilar requests in future sewer projects. <br />i If Council agrees with each of the provisions of the draft <br />^ ©idimance, staff would recommend its adoption as drafted. <br />:4mm <br />iM <br />■y