Laserfiche WebLink
D owsicy »S: \V'hitni :y <br />City of Orono <br />August 28^ 1992 <br />Page 5 <br />good, minimally used, well maintained, operating, and non-polluting system <br />merely on the suspicion that it may not meet separation standards, but with no <br />adequate proof that it does not meet separation standards, is a waste of resources and <br />an abuse of governmental authority. <br />We would suggest that it is a reasonable method of administration of this <br />new septic code when dealing with well maintained, minimally used, working and <br />nonpolluting systems, to give the prop)erty owner the reasonable benefit of the <br />nonconforming structure philost)phy. If the City cannot demonstrate that the septic <br />system is polluting, or that it is not operating properly, but that it may be suspect, <br />due to location, the City it should impose upon that system, by a declaration placed <br />of record, reasonably strict maintenance standards (in this case, we suggest pumping <br />and maintenance at least twice a year), reasonably strict inspection standards (in this <br />case we suggest inspection by an Orono licensed servicer who performs the <br />pumping, at least once a year, supported by a certificate delivered to the City on-site <br />system inspector), and an undertaking that in the event any repair other than <br />ordinary maintenance is required, or in the event that there is any evidence that the <br />system is leaking pollutants into the environment, that there be an immediate <br />requirement of replacement of the system on the alternate site within a 90-day <br />period. <br />In our view, this type of a declaration would serve both the City well by <br />mandating careful monitoring and careful maintenance of "suspect" sites and <br />would yet not burden the property owner with unwarranted and discriminatory <br />expenses in order to rc'place a system which is not in fact polluting anything. <br />We would hope that the Hanning Commission staff and Council would, in <br />this case, consider the utilization of a restrictive covenant against the land of the <br />type described above as a reasonable alternative to the one-year replacement <br />requirement now set forth in the IManning Commission Conditions to the issuance <br />of a Conditional Use Permit passed on August 17, 199? <br />Very trulv yours, » <br />\ <br />JJT/id <br />cc; Mr and Mrs S Albert D Hanser <br />John J. Taylor 1