09-14-1992 Council Minutes2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

H D orsfy ik Whitney City of Orono August 28, 1992 Page 4 subdivision or other codes relating to real estate in the City of Orono must come to the City of Orono for consent and/or approval. There may be many other owners in the City of Orono who live on single family lots who should be affected by this revised septic system ordinance, but who will probably never be affected by this particular ordinance and never have to make a correction due to lack of inspection, time, expense of enforcement, etc. If what the City is trying to do in its septic code revision is to eliminate as much possible contamination of soils and groundwater as possible, then the City should focus not on guest house systems which are very minimally used and which are adequately maintained, but should focus on systems serving dwelling houses located in areas close to lakeshore and wetland areas potentially within prohibited setback areas and/or soil separation areas. Forcing this property owner to remove and replace a well maintained, minimally used septic system, which is properly working and is not polluting the environment, does not further the purpose of the ordinance whatsoever. What will further the purpose of the ordinance is an inspection of all septic system users, including those on smaller lots, who may never subdivide their property or come to the City for any permission, and an investigation of whether or not those systems are "nonconforming" under your ordinances Until some sort of a reasonable plan has been demonstrated by the City to adequately enforce the provisions of this septic code, selective, hit or miss, enforcement bast\l on who has to come to the Council for approvals is, in our view, discriminatory. It is our position that not only will the property be served by a requirement of continued giH>d maintenance practices with respect to the system, but also the City and the environment will be served. Future property ovsmers can be made aw^are of the condition of this gutrst house and its septic system by placing of record a declaration and by including in the declaration requirements of continued careful maintenance, and inspection of the system at reasonable times lo insure that the system continues ti) operate prop>erly. In that way rcspx)nsibility can be dearly designated, the property owners can be relieved from having to incur unreasonable and unnecessary expense to replace a perfectly good, working system, and the City can be benefitted by providing for better than average maintenance and inspection of the system. If it is known that the system is faulty and is leaching fxillutants into the environment, or if the system needs more than normal and ordinary maintenance, obviously the system should be replaced immethately on a 90-day lime schedule. However, in our view, to require the replacement t>f a perfectly