Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRe: septic lot line issue /�_o�,\ _ ; � � ���, , O. O`1 / .a.:w3` � � ,. .. ! ,,£�� =��_,-- �; CITY of ORONU '�,� ��d �r'r'�'• �' G�)I Mun/i�dpavi Op��ces � 1��I�,��LA'+�'� �"% � �VLALDV.I� \�'� `�;�,������ G/� c�s�y,��ss��z�oo� �� �_ .��� �,4�/ . �ESII� 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 Iocated 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. Sullivan 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 much 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 addinq to the system. We felt that there would be a significant chance thaf '' . the mound could fail if this cut/replacement work occurred. �t.�xorrE-a�-�s�•Fax-a�-osio 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 lowest 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 installation 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 virtually 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 approval. When City approval 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 will have to obtain a system construction permit, and will be responsible for calling for all inspections and doing the work correctly. Please 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 �I�CY of OR�. poFt Office Box 66•Cryetal Bay.Minneeota 55.323•Municiy � .. � . � � On the Nort�C Shore oj 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 tha� 3 p°�i 1 ve� Meadow Dr ve t erte ds aS fewe feetr into the residence � your property. Orono's septic code normally requires a setback of 20' from the toe of a mound system te the lot line. It is not uncommon, however, for the City to allow a 10' lot line setback in cases where the site area is restricted and where the dzcreased setback will not affect neighborin _q properties. While the City of Orono measures setbacks to the toe of the mound , the State of rlinnesta Individual Sewage Treatment S:andards and Regulations , also known as Chapter 7080 , states that the setbacWh ch ends at aepointd5'f beyo d theeends ofsthe treatment ar�a , zock 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, contracters working in many different cities may find different interpre�ations in each locality. The mound in question, installed by �lmerican Sewer � Water under Permit �1495 for M & L Construction, was constructed in December 1988. The only documented inspections on file 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, �nd we do not know on what � � basis American Sewer b <<'atez determined where to put the mound, ' except that the approved plan indicates a 10' setback from the BUILDI:�tG&ZOVt.yG-473•'35T • ADN111STR�►710\d Fl�A�CE-s7�73SE � Pt�BUC�►�ORKc_17: ASS�I�iG F�\-�'f3�0510 Robert Seliski - August 2. 1990 Page 2 � lot line to th did n tfadhere�closely to that plan�Uorathat they fact that they did not actually know where the lot line was. Possible options for you to consider should you wish to pursue this issue might include the following: i. Proceed with a lot Iine rearrangement between your property and that to the sovth , to move the lot line to a location meeting a minimum 10' setback from the toe of the mound. This would require a subdivision application with the City of Orono. 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 & Water remove the portions of mound that do not meet the required setback. This like 1}- wou ld resv lt in the need to extend the mound southward. itowever. , my personal opinion is that as long as that system is working, all parties invol ved would be better off to lea��e 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 f or some c�nsideration. A. You could ignore the situation, given that the setback question is arguable and most of your options will result in some expense on your part to pursue them. Or.e issue you hrought up was the idea of sl�ghtly regrading within your property boundaries to bring the area of the mound encroachment back to conformity with the rest of your property. I suppose there is a slight p��ssibility that by removing the topsoi 1 down to the sand base that there cou ld be some seepage onto your property, however. I think this possibility fs minimal. You would have to consult an attorney to determine whethez 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;�idered, my recommendation is to pursue a lot line ' rearrangement with �he ne.ighboring property owner, if you feel i 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 � �ny of the above. Sincerely, � G� � -�-'^-- .c— f � ;i � Michael P. Gaffron Assist;nt Planning � Zoning Adininistrator MPG/lsv � — ,�µ�n� �r�� y���,�y ,.�.,�i 4� �.�. i���„�,,. . . �°� 4, .'k '��..� n.,`. ` �� � . CITY�of��UR(�NO � Post Otlice Hox 66•Crystal Bq►.Minne�oe�663Z9•Moaid0�1 OlAo� � � . � � On the North Shore o/Lakt Min�tttonka ',ugust 2, 1990 '�_�bert Seliskf . ' -'� Silver Meadow Drive � ��ng Lake. Mn 55356 � . . Septic System/Lot Line Issue ����ar Mr. Seliski : "'�zs letter is to follow up oux conversation during the site ��spection at your property this morning. As you had suspected, ' appears that a portion of thA toe of the mound system serving :�� residence at 315 �ilver Meadow Drive, extends a few feet into -,ur property. �-ono's septic code normally requires a setback of 20' from the �e of a mound system to the lot line. It is not uncommon, ��wever, for the City to a l low a 10' lot line setback in cases ��re the site area is restricted and where the decreased setba�ck 11 not affect neighboring properties. ��� ile the City of Orono measures setbacks to the toe of the �und , the State of Dtinnesta Individual Sewage Treatment ��ndards and Regulations , also known as ChapLer 7080, states �.�t the setback should be measured from the def3ned soil �atment area, which ends at a point 5' beyond the ends of the ck layer. Under that interpretati.on, the mound system in ��stion might very well meet the setback standarc3s within the nte rules. While I do not agree with the State's definition, -,tractors working in many different cities may find diffezent �.erpretations in each locality. � `mound in question, insta l led by American Sewer & Water under --mit �1495 for M & L Construction, was constructed in December '8. The only documented inspections on file are for the tanks December 6th and for the ground rough up inspection on -ember 8th. There is no indicati.on in the records of a �stion about the lot line location, �-�nd we do not know on what �-is American Sewer � t•:�-, ter determined where to put the maund, �ept that the apprcrec� plan indicates a 10' setback from the - ,,&7AVIVG-�7i-'3�T • �(►�f1�1cTR�T10�d FltiA�CE-<'1}735a • PUBUC V�'ORKS•�7359 � .CIVG F'�� -17t.IK10 3 � ; : � � Robert Self ski Auqust 2, 1990 � Paqe 2 � lo! line to thc toe of the mound. It appears obvious after-the- 1 far.�t tha� �hey did not adhere closely to that plan, or that they � d� d not actually know where the lot line was. . � Possible options for you to consider should you wish to pursue ; thzs issue might include the following: 1� 1. Proceed with a lot line rearrangement between your ' property and that to the south, to move the lot line to a location meeting a minimum 10' setback from the toe of the mound. This would require a subdivision application with the CitYhat both �lots end upswithmarminimumrof 2uacres in ensure t area. 2. Pursue the idea of having American Sewer & 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. however. , my personal opinion is that as long as that system �s working, all parties involved 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 c�uld consider granting an easement to the neighbor for some consideration . 4. You could ignore the situation, given that the setback question is ar.guable and most of yo�r eptions wi11 result in some expense on your part to pursue them. One issue you t�rouoht up was the idea of slightly regrading within your property boundaries to bring the area of the mound encroachment back to conformity with the rest of your property. I su�+pos�+ ther. c is a s 1 i ght pc�ssibi 1. i ty that by removing the tapsoil down to the sand base that thAre could be some seepage onto your pro�ert-y, hokever, I think this possibility is minimal. Y�u w�u 1d ha ve ' c� c-c�nsu 1 t an attorn�y to determine whether you would be liabl �• :or any damages you could cause to the neiqhbots systcm ��ithin ��c���z� �i-��erty bounc3ari�� . � �'�Cn" � eV fK ' y�1 4 a�y �.' '"� �K.... . .. �t;F �4 � � si j �� '{�'*f . .�� . . � x.. . .. . . � w • � .... . �. �. . . . • �• • . � . . � � - Rober Seliski August 2, 1990 Paqe 3 All things considered, my recommendation is to pursue a lot line rearrangement h�ith the neighboring property owner, if you feel that the situation is not acceptable as is. I would recommend against doing any worY, 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 any of the abovf�. Sincerely, L'' �'�/,i-- � � .•i Michael P. Gaffron Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator MPG/lsv CITY OF ORONO �O� M�micipal Offices O O Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 a � ON-SITE SEWA(;E TREATl�NT INSPECTION REPORT ti ti ��9k o��G EsH Owner: �l/� ///�l�i� Address: �// Permit �'s: Dates: I� 7-a b Contractors: l� City ordinance number 100 requires that each on-site sewage treatment system in Orono be inspected on a regular basis. The on-site sewage treatment system at the above address has been inspected and appears to fall into the category checked betow. (This is � an existing system [ ] new construction) SYSTEM CONFORMITY (1-3): 1 "CODE SYSTEM"-A system which meets all the location, design, and construction standards of the current City Codes, and which is operating satisfactorily by treating and disposing ot the entire current sewage input without discharging eny pollutants into ground or surface waters. 2 "CONFORMING SYSTEM"-A system which does not meet all the location, design, and construction standards of the current City Codes, but was installed according to the code in effect at the time of installation, and which is operating satisfactorily by treating and disposing of the entire current sewage input without discharging any pollutants into ground or surface uaters. 3 "NON-CONFORMING SYSTEM"-A prohibited system; a system located within a designated 100-year floodplain; any system which may or may not meet all the location, design, and construction starxiards of the current City Codes and which is failing for any reason; and any system with less than 3 feet of unsaturated soil or sand between the distribution device and the limiting sotl characteristics. (The limitin� soil characteristic DU has or [ ] has not been identified at this time. If the limiting soil characteristic has not been identifie�J, this classification may be subject to revision.) TANK CONDITION (5-10): T� inspection indicates: Punpout not needed at this time. Solids eccumulation in tanks indicates they should be wmped out this year to help prevent future problems. 7 Solids accumulation in tanks is at a critical level. fianks should be pumped out as soon as possible. 8 System is discharging to the surface. Tanks must be punped out uithin 48 hours to eliminate surface dischar�e. 9 Inspection risers missing-tanks could not be inspected. Inspection risers (4" dia. pipe) must be installed in each tank et next Fxmpout. If tanks have not been pu�ed out within the last three years, they should be punped out now. 10 Inspection pipe is lxated directly over tank beffle (does not give accurate measurement of solids accunulation>. If tanks have not been punped out within the last three years, they should be punped out now. DRAINFIELD CONDITION (11-14): : Dqe�field inspection indicates: (1Y Drainfield is dry, no surfacing evident. `2 Some evidence of surfacing, not critical yet. 13 Drainfield is saturated and visibly discharging untreated effluent to the surface. Contact the City Inspector immediately. Repairs must be completed within 90 days. 14 Drainfield extent and condition unknown. IiMITING S1TE FACTORS (sloce,setbacks.etc.): � POTENTIAL FOR SYSTEM FAILURE Cdeaends on soils.water table,etc.): �� C ENT � � �' Date of Inspection S pt' System In pector Note: In the event that this inspection report is used to satisfy the requirements for a mortgage or other transfer of property, be advised that this report does not guarantee or certify that an existing system will continue to function properly� but is merely an opim on of the adequacy of the system under current conditions based on the available informat�on. This report must be kept on the premises with the system locetion and pumping records. WHITE COPY/Inspectors File YELLOW COPY/Homeowner CITY OF ORONO �O� Municipal Offices O O Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 � � ON—SITE SEWA(3E TREATl�NT � � IN3PECTION REPORT ti ��'�kEsxo�'�G owner: �C�d7eY� .��P��f�l Address: �7� .SI�/�Y �L.J [J1'. Permit �'s: � l� Dates:_ ��'""/_b0 Contractors: /':'�.)/ �tY��c� �� City ordinance number 100 requires that each on-site sewage treatment .system in Orono be inspected on a regular basis. The on-site sewage treatment system at the above address has been tnspected and appears to fall into the category checked below. (This is p�}—an existing system I ] neu construction) SYSTEM CONFORMITY (1-3): 1 "CODE SYSTEM"-A system which meets all the location, design, and construction standards of the current City Codes, and which is operating satisfactorily by treating and disposing of the entire current sewage input without discharging any pollutants into ground or surface waters. 2 "CONFORMING SYSTEM��-A system which does not meet all the location, design, and construction standards of the current City Codes, but was installed according to the code in effect at the time of installation, and which is operating satisfactorily by treating and disposing of the entire current sewage input without discharging any pollutants into ground or surface waters. 3 "NON-CONFORMING SYSTEM"-A prohibited system; a system located within a designated 100-year floodplain; any system which may or may not meet all the location, design, and construction standards of the current City Codes and which is failing for any reason; and any system With less than 3 feet of unsaturated soil or sand between the distribution device and the limiting sotl characteristics. (7he limiting soil characteristic i�Q has or [ ] has not been identified at this time. if the limiting soil characteristic has not been identified, this classification may be subject to revision.) TANK CONDITION (5-10): �' T� inspection irxiicates: 5 Pumpout not needed at this time. Solids accumulation in tanks indicates they should be punped out this year to help prevent future problems. 7 Solids accumulation in tanks is at a critical level. 'fanks should be pumped out as soon as possible. 8 System is discharging to the surface. Tanks must be punped out within 48 hours to eliminate surface dischar�e. 9 Inspection risers missing-tanks could not be inspected. Inspection risers (4" dia. pipe) must be installed in each tank at next punpout. lf tanks have not been punped out within the last three years, they should be pu�ed out now. 10 inspection pipe is located directly over tank baffle (does not give accurate �asurement of solids accunulation). If tanks have not been punped out within the last three years, they should be punped out nou. DRAINfIELD CONDITION (11-14): Drainfield inspection indicates: y�, Drainfie[d is dry, no surfacing evident. (127 Some evidence of surfacing, not critical yet. 'f3 Drainfield is saturated and visibly discharging untreated effluent to the surface. Contact the City Inspector immediately. Repairs must be completed within 90 days. 14 Drainfield extent and condition unknown. LIMITING SITE FACTORS (sloae.setbacks,etc.): POTENTIAL FOR SYSTEM PAILURE (depends on soils,water table.etc.): � � C MMENTS:� ' e — o � i 2 Y . Date of Inspection e ic Sys em Inspector Note: In the event that this inspection report is used to satisfy the requirements for a mortgage or other transfer of property, be advised that this report does not guarantee or certify that an extsting system will continue to function properlyi but is merely an opim on of the adequacy of the system under current conditions based on the available information. This report must be kept on the premises with the system locetion and pumping records. WHITE COPY/Inspectors File YELLOW COPY/Homeowner On the North Shore o f Lake Minnetonka ON-SITE SEWAGE TREATMENT INSPECTION REPORT � POST OFFICE BOX 66 1335 S. Brown Rd. � � � Crystal Bay,MN 55323 473-7357 OWNER f� �I►��h! A�DRESS �S /.� J��✓L����'✓ J/l � PERMIT NO.'S. �`r� DATES �_��o g CONTRACTORS �� City Ordinance No.210 requires that each on-site sewage treatment system in Orono be inspected on a regular basis.The on-site sewage treatment system at the above address has been inspected and eppean to fall into the category checked below. (This is �an exiating system ❑ new construction) �� Meets or excced�current City standards in all respects relating to deaign,construction,and locatio�.Appears to be operating properly. - � 2 Does not meet all current City standards for new construction (1978 Code) but in most respects appears to be designed, located, and constructed generally in accorda�ce with previous codes.System appears to be functioning properly;no major upgrading of the system is required at this time. � 3 Does not meet current City standards in many respects relating to design,construction,or location.Appears to be operating adequately at this time,but has a relatively high potential for future problems. No major upgrading of system is required at this time. � 4 System may or may not meet current City standards for design,construction or location,but is failing to properly treat and dispose of the current input,and is e�dangering a water supply,or is a source of pollution to surface or groundwaters,or is creating a safety hazard,or is othervvise creating a public nuisence.Please contact the City Inspector to discuss system repair/ replacement procedures. If drainfield replacement is necessary,soil testing will usually be required,and a design and site plan must be submitted for review.Your contractor must obtain a permit before work is started. SYSTEM CONDITION (m Checked items may require your action) Tank inspection indicates: ❑ Inapectio� pipe is located directly over tank baffle.(Does not �Pumpout not needed at this time, give accurate measurement of solids accumutation.) If tanks ❑ Solids aecumulation in tanks indicates they should be pump- have not been pumped out within the last three years,they ed out this yeer to help prevent future problems. should be pumped out now. ❑ Solids accumulation in tanks is at a criticel level. Tanks Drainfield inspection indicates: should be pumped out as aoon as possible, �-Drainfield is dry,no surfacing evident. ❑ System is discharging to surface. Tanks must be pumped ❑ Some evidence of surfaci�g,not critical yet. within 48 hours to elimi�ate surface discharge. ❑ Dreinfield is saturated and visibly discharging untreated ❑ Inspsction risers missing—tanks could not be inspected, effluent to the surface, This condition may require replace- Inspection risers (4"dia.pipe)muat be instelled in each tank ment or edditions to drainfield. Contact the City Inspector at next pumpout. If tanka have not been pumped out within immediately.Repairs must be completed within 90 days. the last three yean,they should be pumped out now. ❑ Drsinfield extent and condition unknown. SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Limiting Site Fectors Potential for System Failure Site Capabilities for ❑ Slope (depends on soil types,water Futu e Expansion ❑ Soil table and system condition) �Adequate �-High water table �Low O Fair ❑ Lot size ❑ Medium �Poor ❑ Lake,wetland,or stream ❑ High ❑ Inadequate ❑ Drainage ❑System is causing visible surface discharge. COMMENTS: 7��-�1 Date of Inspection ptic System Inspector Note: In the event that this inspection report is used to satisfy the requirements for a mortgage or other transfer of property,be advised that this report does�ot guarantee or certify that an existing system will continue to function properly,but is merely an opinion of the adequacy of the system under current conditions based o�the available information. This report must be kept on the premises with system location and pumping records. WHITE COPY/Inspector's File GOLD COPY/Homeowner On the Nortb Shore of Lake Minnetonka ON-SITE SEWAGE TREATMENT INSPECTION REPORT � POST OFFICE BOX 66 1335 S. Brown Rd. � � � Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 OWNER �� � �11..��,� ADDRESS -�� „lYP� ✓ PERMITNO.'S. /�/3 DATES �� 7 � CONTRACTORSyI ���✓��►"` �e� City Ordinanoe No. 210 requires that each on-site sewage treatment system in Orono be inspected on a regular basis.The onsite sewage treatment system at the above address has been inapected and appean to fall into the category checked below. (This is � an existing systern ❑ new conatruction) � � Meets or exceeds current City atandards in all respects relating to design,construction,and location.Appears to be operating properly. � 2 Does not meet all current City stsndards fo� new construction (1978 Code) but in most respects appears to be designed, located, and constructed generally in accorda�ce with previous codes.System appears to be fu�ctioning properly;no major upgreding of the system is required at this time. � 3 Does not meet current City standerds in many respects relating to design,construction,or location.Appears to be operating adequately at this time,but has a relatively high potentiat for future problems. No major upgrading of system is required at this time. � 4 System may or may not meet current City standards for design,construction or location,but is failing to properly treat and dispose of the current input,and is endangering a water supply,or is a source of pollution to surface or groundwaters,or is creating a safety hazard,or is othervvise creati�g a public nuisance.Please contact the City Inspector to discuss system repair/ replacement procedures. If drainfield replaceme�t is necessary,soil testit�g will ususlly be required,and a design and site plan must be submitted for review.Your contractor must obtain a permit before work is started. SYSTEM CONDITION ( m Checked items mey require your action) Tank inspection indicates: ❑ Inapection pipe is loceted directly over tank baffle.(Does not .�Pumpout not needed at this time. give eccurate m�surement of solids sccumulation.) If tanks ❑ Solids a�xumulation in tanks indicetes they should be pump� have not been pumped out within the I�t three years,they ed out this year to help prevent future problema. should be pumped out now. ❑ Solida accumulation in tanks ia at a critical level. Tanks �rai field i�spection indicates: should be pumped out as soon as possible. �� Drainfield is dry,no surfacing evident. ❑ System is diacharging to surface. Tanks must be pumped ❑ Some evidence of surfacing,not critical yet. within 48 hours to eliminate surface discharge. O Drainfield is saturated and visibly discharging untreated ❑ Inspection risen miasing—tanks could not be inspected, effluent to the surface. This condition may requi�e replace- I�spection risera (4"dia.pipe)must be instelled in each tank ment or additions to drainfield. Contact the City Inspector at next pumpout. If tanks have not been pumped out within immediately.Repairs must be completed withi�90 days." the last three years,they should be pumped out now. ❑ Drainfield extent and condition unknown, SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Limiting Site Factors Potential for System Failure Site Capabilities for � ❑ Slope (depends on soil types,water Future Expansion O Soil table and system condition) �Adequate ❑ High water table �Low O Fair � Lot size ❑ Medium �Poor ❑ Lake,wetland,or stream ❑ High ❑ Inadequate ❑ Drainage ❑System is causing visible surface discharge. COMMENTS: � � � i i Date of Inspection Septic System Inspector Note: In the event that this inspection report is used to satisfy the requirements for a mortgage or other transfer of property,be advised that this report does not guarantee or certify that an existing system will continue to function properly,but is merely an opinion of the adequacy of the aystem under curre�t conditio�s based on the available information. This report must be kept on the premises with system location and pumping records. WHITE COPY/Inspector's File GOLD COPY/Homeowner