Laserfiche WebLink
<br />y <br /> <br />Health Board, February 16, 1983 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />Department staff feel a mound system would be the best replacement system, <br />such a system could also fail. <br /> <br />Commissioner O'Meara made a motion to permit repair of the existing system <br />with a conventional septic system designed by an engineer and approved by <br />Mr. Durant, Commissioner Pitts seconded the motion. Unanimous. <br /> <br />APPEAL OF SITE EVALUATION: JOSEPH MURRELL: Ed Benn represented Mr. Murrell <br />on this matter. Mr. Murrell wishes to sell his Bridgehaven lot, but feels <br />he is essentially prevented from doing so because an August, 1982 site <br />evaluation indicated site conditions are unacceptable for a septic system, <br />This is in conflict with an October, 1978 site evaluation which condition- <br />ally approved the site, The lot does not provide an acceptable area for a <br />drainfield which is both 100 feet from a neighbor's well and 75 feet from <br />the beach, (Documents: Attachment 2) <br /> <br />There was discussion of the similar problems involving a number of lots at <br />Bridgehaven, and of the Shorelines Permit application now in process in <br />which affected lot-owners are seeking permission to use some fill and place <br />bulkheads in order to prevent further erosion along the bank. In some <br />cases, this may also increase lot size, and could possibly, although not <br />necessarily, affect septic permits. Mr. Murrell's lot is one of those in- <br />cluded in the Shorelines Permit application, <br /> <br />The Board decided to take no action regarding Mr, Murrell's appeal until <br />the Shorelines Permit application has been processed, Mr. Benn agreed that <br />this was reasonable, <br /> <br />APPEAL OF SERTIC SYSTEM APPLICATION DECISION: CHARLES LAWS: Mr, Laws was <br />accompanied by John Ekstrom, septic system designer, during this discussion <br />of his proposal to install a mound system on his lot at Cape George Village. <br />In this case, conditional approval of the site had been given during site <br />evaluations in 1975 and 1977, but the site was found to be unacceptable when <br />a permit application was made in July, 1982. This is another area where <br />soil conditions are generally poor and there have been a number of septic <br />system failures as the area has developed, (Documents: Attachment 3) <br /> <br />Points made regarding this particular lot included: l)The soil is slowly <br />permeable, requiring a greater area and depth to accommodate a septic system <br />than permeable soil. 2)Mr, Ekstrom has designed a mound system, with fill <br />carefully taylored to this site, which he feels would be adequate for this <br />lot and will meet State regulations. 3)Mr, Ekstrom feels there is a 100 <br />percent reserve area available should replacement of the system become <br />necessary, Mr. Durant does not feel there is an adequate reserve area, <br />4)The house Mr. Laws intends to build would have only one bedroom, with <br />water-saving fixtures and a two-bedroom mound. 5)Mr. Laws is willing to <br />add a covenant to the deed which would preclude enlargement of the house <br />and would require water-saving fixtures. 6)Mr, Laws is willing to have the <br />system closely monitored, and agrees to immediately undertake repair or <br />replacement of the system should failure occur. 7)Installation of this <br />system, with careful collection of data, could provide valuable information <br />