Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

TO: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Septic System Inspector DATE: August 11, 1981 SUBJECT: #642 Lachlan Reed, 1500 Bracketts Point Road - Subdivision - Septic Systems Review I have reviewed the existing septic systems and the proposed lot line arrangement and wish to make the following comments: Lot 1 - contains 2 existing buildings with septic systems, and a tennis court. The garage/greenhouse building has a functional septic tank and drainfield which is probably at least 50' back from the lake and probably about 3' above the water table. Both these systems appear to be functioning adequately, although the caretaker house system does not appear to strictly meet shoreland septic system setbacks. In the absence of soil test data, it would appear that a sufficient area of suitable soils (Hayden lo,im) exists on the lot for use as drainfield if/when a new house is built in the future. Realistically speaking, a full Site evaluation should be done for this lot even though it has an existing house. Lot 2 - The existing house on its lot has a series of septic tanks/cesspools northwest of the garage. Exact locations are unk<<own, but it is likely that all are within the lot boundaries. Drainfield is unknown and may not exist. The system appears to be functional. Testing for an alternate drainfield site should be done. There appears to be ample area `or systei,i expansion when it becomes cessar,,. Lot 3 - Existing house has a septic system/drainfiela •::!.ich appears to meet all location requirements. Exact tank and drainfield sizes are unknown. This lot also contains a Gwimming pool and a cot*age near the !-,d ine uotn of which ha,,e existing septic systems. . _ .k.,i, in, drainfieV are unknown, however, the system for the cottage de_initely does not meet shoreland standards and should be re^laced or modified to meet code. Any added informat-.i the applicant his on these systems will be helpful. Lot 3 has previously existed as a separate lot in approximately the same configuration as proposed. While technically it may not be necessary to test for an alternate site, testing will be necessary to find a new location for drainfield for the cottage. In conclusion, I recommend approval of the subdivision as proposed, providing that site evaluation information is satisfactory and the system servinq the cottage is suitably upgraded.