HomeMy WebLinkAboutSoil and Site Conditions for Dog House ,
~
To: Brian Fulmer and Jeanne Mabusth
From: Michael P. Gaffron , Assistant Zoning Administrator
Date: September 20, 1984
Subject: Soil And Site Conditions For Dog House Kennel Proposal
Re: Septic Systems
- Site west of garage slab is not nearly big enough for a mound
or any system.
- Garage slab is over existing dCgi[lfield serving the house! My
official recommendation is that the garage slab be removed.
- Because of 75' well setback, there is very little alternate
drainfield potential at this site, and what little there is
should be preserved for alternate site to serve existing house.
- Site east of proposed kennel was bored by Gchermers and found
to be fill material over peat/organic soils. Water table on
9/17/84 was at 3 ' +/- during the driest time this year.
Schermers noted that the soil was mottled to the surface and
likely would be saturated to very near surface in the spring. He
indicated he would not want to recommend even a mound without a
better knowledge of the high seasonal water table, probably by
monitoring a number of inspection wells for a year.
- In a conversation with Dr. James L. Anderson of the U. of M.
Agrculture Extension Service, he suggested that the existing
kennel system be investigated further to determine how well it is
functioning, and relate it 's effluent quality in the tank to what
might be found with a human waste load.
- Our code requires "extensively detailed site and soil
evaluations" on fill soils, and where peat soils are encountered,
would allow a system under only the most extreme conditions due
to existing lgt gg[lfiggEgtign. The City is under no obligation
to approve a system on these soils. If a system was allowed, it
would be subject to metering of inflows and periodic groundwater
quality testing. I do not believe the City should allow a new
system to be constructed for a new or expanded use unless the
minimum acceptable soil conditions exist, so that we aren 't
creating g U@Lq QCgblg[D where none appears to exist now.
- As for the existing kennel system, we have been repeately told
that no animal fecal materials are introduced into the system,
and that the only discharge is from spraying out the kennel
stalls and from dog wash water , hence we would expect a low-
intensity effluent which might not form a sludge or a biomat. If
this is found to be the case, and no apparent problems with
groundwater quality or liquid volume disposal are noted, I would
feel fairly comfortable in allowing this type of a system to be
installed for the kennel for the existing type of use, without
the human sewage element, i .e. can 't hook up an apartment to it.
1
- Holding tanks? Code states "Holding tanks shall be considered
for reRlggp[D@Ut Eyst@ME gnll< if there are no other alternatives
and it can be shown that their installation will eliminate a
public health or pollution hazard. "
- Based on the information at hand, I must conclude that the site
conditions do not appear suitable for installation of a septic
system the City could confidently expect to function
satisfactorily. The code and past practice and policy would not
allow a holding tank to serve a new dwelling unit in a location
where municipal sewers are not pending. A kennel "graywater"
system serving the property now should be investigated further to
determine whether it could be safely expanded or moved to allow
construction and use of the proposed kennel building.