HomeMy WebLinkAboutRe: septic lot line issue �
> f'
��-�\
/ \
,i�� ��
o :,� o -
� * i CITY of ORONO
� ��l~��^
r� '^'�� '` ''''�" :�' �j Munici Offices
�� `��,�`:,�,�j`�'"'�� � � Posc o�soX 66
\ P�
\ ce
,� �� ,��;l'��h / cry�say,�5s�z3.00�
�kE3il�g'�
August 16, 1991
Sally Olson
Burnet Realty - Relocation Department
Suite 200
1501 West 80th Street
Bloomington, MN 55431 .
Re: 315 Silver Meadow Drive - Septic System/Lot Line Issue
Dear Ms. Olson:
This letter is to reiterate the City's position regarding
the slight encroachment onto 375 Silver Meadow Drive of the mound
sewage treatment system located at 315 Silver Meadow Drive.
I met with Ed Sullivan of Sullivan's Services and the
potential purchaser of the property at the site on Tuesday,
August 6, 1991. Although a critical lot corner stake adjacent to
Old Crystal Bay Road was not found, we concurred that based on
the area being mowed by the neighboring property owner, a few
square feet of the downhill toe of the mound was across the lot
line. Because the sand bed extends across the lot line, this
area could potential ly be considered part of the soil treatment
area of the mound.
We discussed the possibility of inerely removing this area
of the mound and regrading the dikes so that none of the
treatment area is over the line or within the 5' drainage and
utilities easement either side of the lot line. Mr. Sul livan and
I agreed that there would be some risk, albeit very slight, that
this work could potentially result in future seepage towards the
neighbors property.
In order to obtain a greater lot line setback than 5' , it
would be necessary to remove a portion of the rock bed and �
distribution system from the northerly end of the mound and
replace that muc�h area on the south/end. The amount of
construction traffic and activity needed to accomplish this would
have a high potential for damaging the system. Also, the end of
the mound where expansion would occur has likely already been
compacted by construction of the initial mound system. This
compaction would possibly negate the benefits of adding� to the
system. We felt that there would be a significant chance that "' _
the mound could fail if this cut/replacement work occurred.
TELEPHONE-473-7357�FAX-473-0510
�
'� _
Because of this high risk, we recommended against this
method of system "remodeling". Absent the ability to acquire an
easement or revise the lot line to accommodate the system as it -
exists, the Iowest risk option would be to totally replace the
mound in a new location. It is likely that one or more
additional mound sites exist on the property, and I would note
that an area within the existing trees has been tested but its
use would require removal of the trees. Testing would be
required to verify the suitability of an area directly west of
the house which you suggested might be a reasonable alternative
location.
It remains the City's position that the encroachment of this
mound is a matter to be resolved between the property owners,
because the encroachment was discovered long after the system was
completed and accepted. The general contractor and septic system
instal lation contractor are ultimately responsible for correct
placement of the system.
As I have noted in the attached letter to the neighboring
affected property owner, Robert Seliski, it has been our
recommendation from the beginning that an easement or a lot line
rearrangement be pursued. I understand that you have virtual ly
exhausted this route. If you determine that the only solution is
to totally replace the system, once your soil testing and system
design work is complete, submit that information for City
approva 1. When City approva 1 is obtained, you may submit the
plans to as many septic contractors as you wish to have bid on
the project. Whichever contractor you choose wil 1 have to obtain
a system construction permit, and will be responsible for cal ling
for all inspections and doing the work correctly.
P lease contact me at 473-7357 if you require additional
information.
Sincerely,
!�, �^'/
�� �
� Michael P. affron,
Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator
MPG/JB
enclosures: Letter of August 2, 1990 �
cc: Lyle_ Oman, Building Official
Jeanne Mabusth, Building & -Zoning Administrator .
Bruce Vang, Field Inspector
Steve Weckman, Septic Inspector
r e. ,�� +
. :
f
���c�o� oR�.
VoRt O�ce Box 66•Cryetal Bay.Minnesota 55323•Municir
i �
� . � � On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka ' �
August 2, 1990
Robert Seliski
37� Silver Meadow Drive
Long Lake, Mn 55356
RE: Septic System/Lot Line Issue
Dear Mr. Seliski :
This letter is to follow up our conversation during the site
inspection at your property this morning. As you had suspected,.
it appears that a por�tion of the �Dr ve,t erte ds as fewe feetr into
the residence at 315 . ilver Meado
your property. �
Orono's septic code normally requires a setback of 20' from the
toe of a mound system to the lot line. It is not uncommon,
however, for the City to a l low a 10' lot line setback in cases
where the site area is restricted and where the d2creased setback
wil 1 not affect neighboring properties.
While the City vf Orono measures setbacks to the toe of the
mound , the State of riinnesta Individual Sewage Treatment
S�andards and Regulations , also known as Chapter 7080, states
that the setback should be measured from the defined soil
treatment area , which ends at a point 5' beyond the ends of the
rock layer. Under that interpretation, the mound system in
question might very well meet the setback standards withfn the
State rules. while I do not agree with the State's definition,
contractors working in many different cities may find different
interpre�ations in each locality.
The mound in question, installed by American Sewer 6 Water under
Permit �1495 for M & L Construction, was constructed in December
1988. The only documented ins�ections on fi le are for the tanks
on December 6th and for the ground rough up inspection on
December 8th. There is no indication in the records of a
question about the lot line location, r�nd we do not know on what
� basis American Sewer & tti'ater determined where to put the mound,
: except that the approved plan indfcates a 10' setback from the
BUII�I�G i�ZO�t1.UG-�73-�57 • ADN1115TR�1Ti0�d Fl�A�CE-r73-735E • PI�BUC a'ORK�-�':
ASSFtq�iG F�Y-17}0510
�
r
_. . .
Robert Seliski
August 2, 1990 -
Page 2
lot line to the �a notfadhere�closely to that plan�Uorathat they
fact that they d
did not actually know where the lot line was.
Possible options for you to consider should you wish Lo pursue
this issue might include the following:
;.. Proceed with a lot Iine rearrangement between your
property and that to the sovth , to move the lot lir►e to a
location meeting a minimum 10' setback from the toe of the
mound. This would require a subdivision application with
the City of Or�no. The City's primary concern would be to
ensure that both lots end up with a minimum of 2 acres in
area.
2. Pursue the idea of having American Sewer b Water remove
the portions of mound that do not meet the required setback.
This likely would result in the need to extend the mound
southward. ttowever. , my personal opinion is that as long as
that system is working, all parties invol ved would be better
off to leave it alone as is , and not risk the potential of
damaging it while attempting to extend it.
3. You cculd consider granting an easement to the neighbor
for some consideration .
4. You could ignore the situation, given that t.he setback
question is arguable and most of your options will result in
some expense on your part to pursue them.
Or.e issue you 6rought up was the idea af sl�ghtly regradinq
within your property boundaries to bring the area o£ the mound
encroachment back to conformity with the rest of your property.
I suppose there is a slight p��ssibility that by removinq tbe
topsoil down to the sand base that there could be some seepaqe
onto your property, however. I think this possibility is minima 1.
You wou ld ha ve to consu 1 t an attorney to determine whether you
would be liable for any damages you could cause to the neiqhbors
system within your property boundaries .
. } _
•, �, :
- Rober Seliski
August 2� 1990
Page 3 �
� All things coi;5idered, my recommendation is to pursue a lot line
{ rearrangement with the ne.ighboring property owner, if you feel
; that the situation is not acceptable as is. - I would recommend
against doing any work that changes that mound system; simply on
the basis that "if it's not broken, don't Fix it". Cutting back
one end of the system and adding on to the other, could result in
damages that would adversely affect that system.
Please feel free to contact me at 473-7357 if you wish to discuss �
a�ny of the above.
Sincerely,
- � �
�f f�C'�- .�---
�
Michael P. Gaffron
Assist:nt Planning � Zoning Ad�ninistrator
MPG/lsv