Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996/08/01 - Board of HealthMASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH August 1, 1996 The Board of Health was called to order at 10:00 a.m. by Chairperson William O. Hunter with Board Members Faughender and Cady in attendance. ATTENDANCE: William O. Hunter, Chairperson Mary L. Faughender, Board Member Mary Jo Cady, Board Member Brad Banner, Health Services Director Pam Denton, Lead Environmental Health Specialist Brent Long, Board of Health Clerk James Saelens, Appellant Phyllis Saelens, Appellant Ray Coleman, Mason County AIDS Advisory Council CORRESPONDENCE Chairperson Hunter has submitted a letter to the Bremerton/Kitsap County Health District informing that the Mason County Board of Health will attend the District's upcoming meeting pertaining to the Olympic View Landfill. Facsimile received from Richard Medieros, Belfair, regarding his past correspondence to Mr. Watts of the Health Department which has been unanswered. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved/seconded by Board Members Faughender/Cady that the minutes of the June 6, 1996 meeting be approved as revised. Motion carried unanimously. Moved/seconded by Board Member Faughender/Chairperson Hunter that the minutes of the July 11, 1996 meeting be approved as submitted. Motion carried. Vote: F-yes; H-yes; C-abstain. APPEAL HEARING - JAMES & PHYLLIS SAELENS - N. 32640 Highway 101, Lilliwaup All parties wishing to testify during the Saelens appeal hearing were sworn in by Chairperson Hunter. He explained the procedure and asked if the Saelens would like to present their case first or if they would prefer the Health Department staff to begin. Mr. Saelens replied he would prefer to present their case after the staff report. Board Member Faughender commented that since the Board was setting in a quasi-judicial position, they had no prior knowledge of the facts that were to be presented today. Chairperson Hunter concurred, noting the Board of Health was entirely impartial. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH August 1, 1996 - Page 2 of 8 Pam Denton, Lead Environmental Health Specialist, reported that the Saelens were appealing the Mason County Building Permit Policy which requires that the septic system meet current code when an expansion beyond 200 square feet was proposed on shoreline. Earlier this spring Mr. Saelens and his architect met with her to review the proposal. At that time, Mr. Saelens' proposal was to expand greater than 200 square feet. Mr. Saelens had been told that in order to meet policy his primary septic system would need to meet code and his reserve septic system would need to meet code. In May, a septic system designer, Bob Paysee Sr., applied for an Environmental Health Review. Mr. Paysee had submitted a letter regarding the septic system, a plot plan, and a cross-section drawing of the existing system. An inspector did go out to the site, three test holes were inspected, and the plot plan was found to be 'consistent with the site evaluation. Later in May, Mr. Saelens officially applied for a waiver, appealing the building permit requirements which require a conforming primary and reserve septic system. The septic system does not meet code. The older septic system records and the new submittals were reviewed, and it was determined that the septic system was a deep trench system 45 feet back from Hood Canal. The pipe, as shown on the designer's cross-section, was three feet down in the ground. Below the pipe was seven feet of washed drain rock. This does not meet code. The primary concern was that the sewage goes right into the drain field and shoots right down through the seven feet of rock into the water table. The designer, himself, actually emphasized this point. When he was digging test holes, he ruptured the water line. The well sets up above, and there is a 800 foot transport line down to wherethe house is located. Water ran for 15 minutes into the drain field. According to the designer, the drain field absorbed all this water and was dry within five minutes. Therefore, the water shot right down through the 7 feet of rock into the water table. The septic system is inadequate; it does not meet horizontal setbacks or vertical separation. Vertical separation is the depth of soil between the bottom of the drain field and the restrictive layer. In this case, the restrictive layer would be the water table. The bulkhead on the property is four and one-half feet tall. The septic system is three feet down and has seven feet of drain rock below that. The septic system is actually deeper than the bulkhead which tells us that all the sewage enters directly into the water table. There is no vertical separation with this septic system. It does not meet horizontal setbacks. A primary conforming septic system must be 100 feet back from shoreline. In this case, it is only 45 feet back from the shoreline. There is also no conforming reserve area available. The only reserve area available shown on the plot plan was right behind the bulkhead. Ms. Denton referred to a document entitled Vertical Separation, a Review of Available Scientific Literature and a Listing from Fifteen other States which defines vertical separation which she presented to the Board. The document explained the treatment process which occurs in an on -site sewage system. Ms. Denton read aloud from the document: Treatment is the process of purification by which the disease microorganisms, MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH August 1, 1996 - Page 3 of 8 organic nutrients and the inorganic materials are removed from the sewage before the sewage enters the ground water. Vertical and horizontal separation are essential for the treatment of sewage. Vertical separation is the depth of permeable, unsaturated soil that exists between the bottom of the drain field and the restrictive layer. The restrictive layer is the hardpan, bedrock or water table. It is 'essential that on -site septic systems have adequate vertical separation in 'order to effectively treat the sewage. Vertical separation primarily effects the removal of bacteria and viruses. Again, there is no vertical separation with the current septic system. Current systems are designed and installed to both treat and dispose of effluent. With this deep trench system, there is no treatment. The building permit policy being appealed took the Shoreline Master Program into consideration when it was written. The policy's intent is to upgrade substandard septic systems that are used part-time when they are expanded to full-time usage. Small part-time recreational dwellings are often expanded in order to become full-time residences. When a dwelling is converted from part- time recreational use to full-time use there is a dramatic increase in sewage flow. Mason County has spent time and money in repairing and finding failed, inadequate septic systems. By allowing the expansion of a known sub -standard septic system where untreated sewage will directly enter the water table goes against all the work the county has done. Mr. Saelens has known for three years that his septic system needed to be upgraded if he expanded the dwelling. Back in July of 1993, Mr. Saelens asked the Department of Community Development what would be required if he expanded his dwelling. The Department performed a site inspection and wrote Mr. Saelens a letter stating that the "most limiting factor affecting the development on this site is the need to upgrade your septic system." According to the Shoreline Master Program expansions ofexisting dwellings shall require strict compliance with current sewage system setback and design standards as per WAC 246-272. Both the Mason County Building Permit Policy and the Shoreline Master Program require a conforming primary and reserve septic system when expanding more than 200 feet on shoreline. This septic system will not treat the sewage before it enters the water table. This lack of treatment will pose a threat to public health, and risk another downgrade of the shellfish beaches. The Health Department has worked with Mr. Saelens. His waiver was approved initially with the condition that a pretreatment device be used. The Department will allow him to use the deep trench system provided the sewage is pretreated before it goes into the drain field. The concern is treatment. There is a serious potential public health impact with this septic system due to the lack of treatment. Chairperson Hunter asked the depth of the water table. Ms. Denton replied that the Saelens bulkhead was only four and one-half feet, and the total depth to the bottom of the drain rock was MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH August 1, 1996 - Page 4 of 8 a total of ten feet. The test holes were small hand -dug holes due to the limited area, and went down 36 inches. The water table would be, at minimum, four and one-half feet down. Board Member Cady asked if Hood Canal came all the way up to the Saelens bulkhead. Ms. Denton replied that it did. Chairperson Hunter wondered if the waters of Hood Canal came under the Saelens bulkhead into the drain field. Ms. Denton replied that test holes have not been dug to verify that. However, there was 7 feet of just drain rock. The system was permitted originally in 1969. Septic systems, at that time, were concerned strictly with disposal; getting rid of the effluent and making sure the sewage did not backup onto the property or into the residence. In 1969, treatment was not a consideration. Now, they realize with all the problems they have had with water quality, that treatment is very important, as well as disposal. Chairperson Hunter asked if the system had ever been dye tested. Ms. Denton responded that it had not, to her knowledge. Board Member Cady asked if the Saelens had been given information regarding every alternative which was available. Ms. Denton replied she had talked to the appellants about pre-treatment, and about an intermittent sand filter. Another option would be an aerobic treatment device which would actually take the place of their septic tank. The cost was approximately $4,000 to $6,000 for one of these pre-treatment devices. Ms. Denton stated that another point was that the Saelens did not have a conforming reserve area on this site. Their only other option was to put a system right behind the bulkhead. Even so, the Department was trying to work with the limits of the site to the best of their ability. Board Member Cady questioned the possibility of a self-contained unit that would be on a pumping contract. Ms. Denton replied that those units were difficult to monitor and track, and were very costly. The Department would have to ensure that a pumping contract was maintained and that the alarms were not being turned off. These types of things do not work very well because they take so much time and energy to track and enforce. Board Member Cady asked if the Saelens had additional property across the road. Ms. Denton noted that the Saelens would address this, but it was her understanding that it was a long piece of property which was quite steep. The property was located at Stetson Beach, north of Lilliwaup on Hood Canal. There was enough square footage of land, but the steepness makes it unsuitable for septic systems. Also, the location of the wells have to be considered. They cannot put someone's drain field next to someone else's drinking water. Therefore, the only reserve area was behind the bulkhead. Chairperson Hunter asked for additional questions; none heard. The appellants were asked to make their presentation. James Saelens, N 32640 Highway 101, Lilliwaup, commented that Ms. Denton's report was basically correct. However, he did want to add information regarding the location of the lot and show a plan update for a 204 square foot modification versus a 349 square foot addition that had been requested. Mr. Saelens presented a photo of his house and bulkhead (exhibit 1). A second photo (exhibit 2) showed the stretch of beach to the north. Mr. Saelens stated that the closest residence was about 900 feet to the south. The closest house to the north, on the water, was at Stetson Beach which was approximately 1,000 feet away. The third photo (exhibit 3) showed MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH August 1, 1996 - Page 5 of 8 the bank behind his residence. A photo of the driveway and the water line (exhibit 4) were presented. Chairperson Hunter asked the distance of the Saelens driveway. Mr. Saelens replied the road was 600 feet long, and then there was 100 feet over to the well. Chairperson Hunter asked if the road furnished access to other property owners. Mr. Saelens responded it was a private drive, and submitted a photo showing the front view of the residence (exhibit 5). He stated the home was built in 1969 by constructing a bulkhead and back filling a flat spot. He believed the builders had planned to put in a series of houses there, because there was a large transformer on his property. He had asked the PUD why there was so much power, and he was told it was anticipated there would be a series of homes but they were not built. Mr. Saelens informed they had known about the restrictions for quite some time. However, the letter did have the statement that the most controlling factor would be the requirement to come to code on the septic system or a waiver would have to be sought. That was, of course, what they had in mind. He had been employed at the time and did not have the time to pursue these things. The holes the Health Department staff looked at were not hand dug. The holes were dug with a backhoe that Mr. Paysee brought to the property. One test hole was approximately 6 feet deep. There were also 2 hand -dug test holes that Mr. Paysee originally dug, and then later brought up the heavier equipment and dug more holes. There were 2 holes about 36 inches deep which did not prove anything. The other test holes were much deeper. There was approximately 5 inches of rain from the time the holes were dug until the inspection was done. Dirt did wash into the holes which changed the depth. What was originally dug and what the staff saw, may have been different. The letter submitted by the Saelens requesting a waiver was presented (Exhibit 6). Mr. Saelens stated that, at this time, they did not expect to live at the residence full-time. The remodeling would enable Mrs. Saelens to leave her quilting at the residence rather than taking it back and forth. They do intend to keep the residence in their family as a vacation home for quite some time. He understands that these plans can always change, and Ms. Denton has to look at things differently than he does. The home will be used more now that he was retired, however, they do not foresee the home as a full-time residence. The last occupant did live there full-time for 6 years, and the previous owner used it strictly as a vacation home. The original owner was contacted in order to receive information regarding the septic system, and they did establish where the system was located. Three permits had been applied for in the past, but action was never taken. The on -site system which was being required would be between $6,000 and $7,000. They did investigate locating up by the highway, and the cost was approximately $25,000, at that time. Mr. Saelens submitted their proposed floor plan for an approximately 200 square foot addition (exhibit 7). The first floor would basically stay the same, with the addition of a stairwell. The second floor would add a deck and a room 10' x 12' 8" in size, and a small bath. If they built the 349 square foot addition, it would be the same plan except the room would be 12' x 15' feet in size (exhibit 8). The usage of the home would be identical. The 200 square foot addition would make an awfully small room, and it did not warrant the $7,000 expense of a new septic system. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH August 1, 1996 - Page 6 of 8 The septic tank was pumped and inspected for potential signs of leakage. The inspector did not find any sign of sewage leakage. He submitted a photo showing the area which was inspected (exhibit 9). Mr. Paysee also looked for signs of leakage and did not find any. The previous owner had pumped the tank 5 years earlier, and had been told it could have gone another 3 or 4 years before pumping because it was working so well. Mr. Saelens believed the system was working. They were hoping to sell oysters from the beach but first a test would have to be taken. Property to the south was approved for the harvesting of oysters. He was hoping the test would have been completed by now in order to present the findings at this hearing. Chairperson Hunter asked if the Saelens' property was below Colony Surf. Mr. Saelens replied they were approximately an eighth of a mile to the south. The Saelens' well was up the hillside, and was the only one up there. It would be touch and go if they were to put a pumping station up there and also be 100 feet from the well. They would not want to contaminate their own water. Mr. Paysee believed there was sufficient area available if the present system failed. He had given him this statement. Mr. Paysee had indicated he could install a shallow non -conforming drain field along with the system that meets Treatment Standard II. If the system did fail, they would be more open to replacing with a Level II system, but adding that cost of $7,000 to add the smaller addition did not seem reasonable. He stated although the experience was very frustrating lining up septic tank people and pumpers and finding records, he did understand what was being requested. It just reflected that 25 years ago it was a different world. Mrs. Saelens commented that there was no way they wanted to contaminate anything or ruin their own beach. They are environmentally -geared people. They do what they can to preserve what was there. Small trees have been replaced. They want the property to remain wonderful. The Board asked questions regarding the floor plan. Board Member Cady asked how far from either side of the Saelens' property was another house. Mr. Saelens answered that the Johnson house was 900 feet by pacing, and to the north there was a house directly above them. All the houses to the north were located above the bank and looked down at the water. The first house located on the water was about 1,000 feet away at Stetson Beach. Board Member Cady asked about the location of other wells. Mr. Saelens stated there were no other wells near his property; they were located up on the hill. Approximately 600 feet north from his property, the land slants down near Stetson Beach were there are about 30 or 40 homes. Chairperson Hunter noted he was very familiar with the area and had visited many of the nearby sites. Mr. Saelens remarked that their main point was that the 200 and 349 square foot remodeling proposals were identical building plans, except the size of the room being larger. The extra space was for the occasions when family visits. Board Member Cady asked the square footage of the present residence. Mr. Saelens replied the outside measurement was 33 feet by 33 feet (1,089 square feet), and was 2 bedrooms with a bath between in the back, and the living, dining and kitchen areas across the front. The proposed upper room would be a quilting room. The architect had calculated the addition at 349 square feet. The smaller proposal was actually 150 square feet. Both have a small crow's nest and would have the same basic deck, and both would have a small half -bath. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH August 1, 1996 - Page 7 of 8 Board Member Faughender commented there did not -seem to be much debate as to the facts or the current situation. The Saelens were well aware of what it would cost to put in a Level II system, and were aware of the type of system it would be. The request appears to be for a waiver to the review of septic requirements for a remodel over 200 square feet. Mr. Saelens agreed, and stated to add the room was an expensive proposition, but to have only an additional 200 square feet when they are finished makes it a questionable proposition. They may have to revert back to repairing the roof and current deck. He noted they were strictly asking for a waiver because of the expense associated with the remodeling. Adding such a small livable space does not warrant the expense. Chairperson Hunter asked for additional comment from staff. Ms. Denton stated the purpose of the policy was because increases to part-time recreational structures make them much more livable and increased the likelihood of additional sewage usage. The impacts of increased use would have an affect on this septic system. She agreed the current system disposes very well. However, the lack of treatment was the issue. The future use of the property was also unknown. Board Member Cady asked if the code pertained to 200 feet of living space or did it refer to a total of 200 square feet. Ms. Denton replied the square footage would include all heated space, which would not include the deck but would include the storage area. However, to get up to a 200 square foot expansion, there still needed to be a non -failing system. She has concerns that the system was not adequately treating the sewage and there was a potential problem especially with increased use. She noted that the Saelens had not completed a building permit application yet because they were trying to get these issues addressed first. Board Member Cady asked if dye testing had been performed, or if there were any indications that it was a failing system. Ms. Denton stated she had not been on site, but based on the facts known about on -site septic systems, she did not feel that this system treats the sewage. By definition, if it does not treat sewage, it was considered a failure. Mr. Saelens stated he appreciated Ms. Denton's concern regarding the future use. However, all the evidence now shows it was a working system. It may not meet specific requirements of septic treatment that have changed over the years. The usage would remain the same, it would just give them more space. Chairperson Hunter asked for further testimony or questions; none heard. Board Members Cady/Faughender moved/seconded to close the appeal hearing at 10:55 a.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Hunter informed the Saelens the Board would render its decision within two weeks. STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S LAWSUIT AGAINST TOBACCO INDUSTRY Mr. Banner, Health Services Director, requested that the Board of Health approve and sign a resolution which supports the Washington State Attorney General's lawsuit against the tobacco industry. Mr. Banner read aloud the resolution, after which discussion followed. Chairperson Hunter asked for action by the Board; none taken. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH August 1, 1996 - Page 8 of 8 MASON COUNTY AIDS ADVISORY COUNCIL Mr. Ray Coleman, member of the Mason County Aids Advisory Council, informed the Board there will be an Aids Walk on Saturday, September 28th beginning at 9 a.m., in the Walmart parking lot. Money raised by pledges would be used to help those affected with AIDS in our county. He thanked Chairperson Hunter for attending and speaking at last's years event, and encouraged the entire board to participate in this year's fund raiser. Since he lost his son of AIDS nine years ago, many positive steps have taken place in Mason County, including community education and the placement of four condom machines. He hoped there would be four more machines installed in the future. He noted that as the county grows, there will also be more AIDS cases. Last year, he received outstanding support by the businesses in our community, and hoped for continued success. Chairperson Hunter confirmed he would attend. MEETING ADJOURNED Board Members Faughender/Cady moved/seconded that the Board of Health meeting be adjourned. Motion carried unanimously. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF H ALTH William O. Hunter, Chairperson Mary Jo ' ady Board Me}jber M. L. Faughender,Board Member Respectfully submitted, )ilkflaAkt O %- Lorraine Coots