Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

TO: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator. FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, S(-ptic Systems Inspector DATE: June 18, 1981 SUBJECT: 4626 Charles Van Eeckhout, North Drown Road - Subdivision - :itc Evaluation Review, -,-optic Systems I have reviewed the site evaluation information s�.ibi'.iitted and wish to make the following cumments: 1) As per my past conversation and aareeme3nts with Van ::eckhout any: his site evaluator, Gar, Rathbun, Lartial soil testing was performed which supposed } uould fulfill tl'.e requirements fox, jLi:eliminar�: alpr.oval. This was to establish that each lot as propose .dould have a site capable of supporting a septic system. li:)wever, this testing would not be sufficient for the Cit:.• to grant final approval of th-- subdivision, and would not be s•..rfficiently detailed to -lesign a system For a specific house and site flan. As noted later in this memo, Orono Code and standard procedure nor-n:all y requires that complete testing be :gone r)riur to preliminary 3_: roval. 2) Of the seven lots prapose:d, all but one essentially were found to contain soils carpal.le ()f supporting a mound system. The remianing lot, lot 4, rontainc,i - heavy clay loam which had an average percolation rite o: 2�'0 minutes per inch, not suit- able for any type of sel.-tic s•.•stem by Orono Code. 3) Virtually all of the hits curitained mottled soil 3t 'lepths below, 2 feet. Thi. indicates that the soil is saturated at some time di.: inq the •}-c--ar up to the 2 foot depth. Since Orono Cocie rf!quirf�s .. 3 foot separation tt-tween the field rack and this .;atura'.ian zone for proper tre±. —l—rnr and disposal to occ:,:r, mound _ztems are necessar.'. The site evaluator'.-; tc-commeridatioT. is to c.,ither modify lot 4 (rearrange lot lines) or relocate the .irain ield site. In either case, further testinel is necessar- to find suitable soil for a c.rainf.eld site un lot 4. The ether alternative is t7 eliminate lot 4 and ;.rare•..-+.s with a 6 lo.f division. Orono's On -Situ Code stipulate:, that "at the tire- of filmy -or preliminary 1,lat approval, the dcveloper shall provide a site evaluation report confirn.iria that each building site has suf- f icient suitat)le soil `or on -sip.,? sewac;e treatment" This nor- mally requires the `ull set of percolation test! anti bori.nys we would need to issue a building permit for each lot. In the case of the application at hand, since the lanes has few limita- tions other than the soil and saturated zonk,-s (steep slopes and wetlands have only a sligr.t bearzno on lot. c:_,n icturations far this division), it was likely that r,,merous sites were possible for drainf ield locations on each lot, . The applicant •wi sned to invest as little nioney is 1posezible in determining the lootential buildablility of the proposed lute: without ztlsort in,l to I full-