Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

We would also like to make clear the nature of the services that we provide for our clients. Your letter leaves the impression that we somehow guarantee that for fees charged we will find an acceptable on site system design. That is not the case. There are sites on which it is not possible to design a system and meet code requirements. There are also provisions of the code which are subject to interpretation and, are in our experience, have been interpreted differently by different building officials. While we are willing to spend our best efforts to find a system that meets our clients needs and the code and for which he can secure approval, it is made clear at the outset of relations with a client that there is no guarantee that we will be successful in designing a systen that will be approved. We urge them to seek written governmental approval before making decisions regarding the use or potential use of their land. Since we cannot know the minds of government officials, nor know the characteristics of a site until we evaluate it, we know of no other way to proceed. In this process we do not wish to persuade the government to put at risk the publics rights to environmental protection and the homeowner's right to expect a properly functioning disposal system nor do we wish to see the government arbitrarily deny the use and enjoyment of property rights to that same public by interpretations of the codes which are not in line with the underlying intent of the codes and which may render the site unbuildable. We continue to feel that our design represents a good response to the conditions on site but would welcome suggestions for improvement. We don't see that reorienting is necessary or desirable but would like to heai- your comments on our reasoning in that regard. We do feel that we should improve the documentation of our ca1c,.ations so that you can more easily follow our design calcul ions. We also feel that an in house check list to catch minor omissions may be useful. One possible avenue to a solution that occurs to us is that if the uphill slopes of the mound which do not receive any effluent were allowed to encroach in to the required setbacks and the width available for construction of the proposed home were reduced to 26 feet, we could move the s,-•stem so that the 75 foot setback from the pond could be met. When Gene discussed these setback requirements with you, yr,i indicated that this was not your normal practice, b'It w4- ,gest it aF a variance that may make more sense than vic, ating the 7 ) setback.