1982-06-01 Memo, Septic System Design Review

Home Browse Search

$ EXHIBIT TO: FROM: DATE: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Septic System Inspector June 1, 1982 SUBJECT; #685 Charles Krogness - Subdivision - Septic System Review I have reviewed the proposed subdivision and wish to make the following comments: Lot 1 (new lot) - Primary and alternate sites were tested, with percolation rates averaging 7.4 and 5.7 mpi respectively. Water table depth ranged from 3.7 ft to 5.8 ft or deeper, hence shallow trenches would be recommended, as well as runoff and groundwater diversions uphill from the system, assuming house location does not change. Lot 2 - Existing house with existing system. Existing system was inspected in 1981 and appeared to be in operable condition. An alternate site has been tested and is suitable for a standard drainfield. One problem does present itself, however. At least one drainfield line protrudes approximately 15-20' into the proposed new lot at a point where the new house would presumably be located. Orono code requires a 20' setback for drainfield from property lines, although only 10' is normally enforced where reasonable to do so. For this subdivision, since the existing drainfield would be very close to the proposed new house, two options present themselves: 1 - Rearrange lot lines to give the 10' setback. This would severely limit the area where the proposed house could be located. 2 - Cut off the existing drainfield to a point at least 10' back from the proposed lot line, then add an equivalent amount of drainfield downhill on Lot 2. While it may seem unreasonable to remove an existing functional drainfield becuase it is over the lot line, it is equally unreasonable to expect a future owner of Lot 1 to allow treatment of his neighbors sewage on his lot. Futhermore, the expected runoff from a house on Lot 1, as well as construction fill and disturbance, might possibly disrupt the proper functioning of that portion of drainfield anyway. One problem that may crop up is that by cutting off the end of the drainfield, the soil disturbance may create a seepage point if the line fills up. My recommendation is that the entire line (or lines) be abandoned and the equivalent or more of new drainfield be constructed further south, .where the effect of added runoff will be lessened. (While allowing the lines to be merely shortened would be acceptable if we knew Mr. Krogness would continue to own the existing house, we should not take the chance that drainfield changes made necessary by the subdivision cause a future problem for a new owner of the existing house).