Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996/11/19 - Board of Health MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH APPEAL HEARING November 19, 1996 ATTENDANCE: William O. Hunter, Chairperson Mary Faughender, Board Member Mary Jo Cady, Board Member Brad Banner, Director of Health Services Mark Tompkins, Water Quality Program Manager Pam Denton, Lead Environmental Health Specialist Kim Lincoln, Environmental Health Specialist Brent Long, Board of Health Clerk Jim and Janice Cooperstein, Appellants Robert Slee, R A S Commercial Service's Cindy Olsen John Bolender APPEAL HEARING - JIM & JANICE COOPERSTEIN MICHAEL DICK PROPERTY-LOT A SHORT PLAT 178,PART OF BELFAIR CENTER Chairperson Hunter called the appeal hearing to order at 2:00 p.m. He explained that Jim and Janice Cooperstein were appealing the septic system plan submitted by Michael Dick for property located in the Belfair Center which was owned by Mr. Dick. He noted that the Board of Health has not been involved in this matter until now. This was done purposefully so that an unbiased decision could be made by the Board. The Board would hear both sides of the appeal in a quasi- judicial manner. The appellants would be given the opportunity to present their case first if they so desired. Each person wishing to testify was asked to stand and be sworn in. Those wishing to testify were asked to direct their comments to the Board of Health. Janice Cooperstein presented a map of the property and 16 pages of attachments (Exhibit 1). She directed the Board's attention to Lot A, which is owned by Michael Dick. She stated the shaded area was building. The Spot Realty building fills the whole lot. At the time Lot A was developed, Mr. Dick and two other developers owned Lot B which is the large adjacent lot, as well as Lot C and Lot D which was located behind his building. At the time he developed, he owned 5 acres. Lot A is one-quarter of an acre in size. Mr. Dick subdivided the area. Back in 1975, he subdivided the lots into 4 separate lots. In 1978, prior to his sell-off of the rest of the lots, he developed Parcel A. In 1978, he sold off Parcel B and Parcel C to her and her husband. At that time, there were no septic easements and no agreement for any easement having to do with any use of their land. On the day of closing of the property, though, an easement was filed unknown to them, the buyers, concerning parking. The easement which was an agreement between Mr. Dick and the two other developers basically said that Parcel A would have an easement to park on Parcel B so long as it did not violate the legal requirements of Parcel B. It did violate the legal requirements, even at that time. This was not the direct issue here. However, she wanted them to know that Parcel A has no other rights to any land or any use other than its own quarter acre. In 1978, Mr. Dick sold off the property to them, and in 1988, he sold off Parcel D which was another 3 acres or so. The issue of the parking easement is going to court, and has been rescheduled for sometime in December. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH COOPERSTEIN APPEAL-NOVEMBER 19,1996 Page 2 of 19 Board Member Cady asked if the Coopersteins owned Parcel B. Mrs. Cooperstein replied that they own Parcels B and C. They do not own Parcel D. It was sold to another party in 1988. Board Member Cady asked if the parking easement had anything to do with this appeal hearing. Mrs. Cooperstein responded that it does not directly, but it did cause Lot A to be built on with no land. It was overdeveloped at the time it was built. It broke the Mason County Parking Codes at the time it was built. It should have had some parking. The only parking that Mr. Dick and his partners developed was about 58 parking spaces. Parcel B required all 58 parking spaces. She realizes that Mr. Dick is claiming that the easement states it gives him parking, although the direct words in the easement do not say that. He was also claiming a prescriptive easement on their parcel, claiming that he has used it long enough that he is claiming rights to their parcel for parking. They were pursuing this in court. It was not directly related, but it does say that he has no land and no rights to land other than his own lot. In terms of the septic system, it was very clear there was no septic easement and he has not claimed that there was a septic easement. Mrs. Cooperstein referred to page two of Exhibit 1 which displayed a close-up of Mr. Dick's lot. She commented that the little, empty area in the very front of Mr. Dick's building faces the parking lot and there are approximately three spaces for parking there on his own land. His drainfield now fills the whole courtyard. In the back of the building is another drainfield that fills the whole back of the building and this is also a sensitive area. On the south of the building, there is an employee parking lot. There used to be parking on the south end in the employee parking lot, but there no longer is. It has all been blocked off. There is no more parking allowed. In the front of the building there used to be an extra parking space which is currently blocked off. Mrs. Cooperstein submitted a photo showing the front of Mr. Dick's building (Exhibit 2), where the parking space had been eliminated. Today, there are more cones than what is shown in the photo. Even though he has hardly any parking, Mr. Dick is eliminating one space because of the septic design. He had to redesign his entry way to avoid his septic system. A photo showing the employee parking area(Exhibit 3) was submitted. Mrs. Cooperstein commented that the area was now mounded up, blocked off, and no-parking signs have been put up. Railroad ties have been placed to prevent parking. Mrs. Cooperstein stated that the tenants started petitioning them because there was no parking in the center, and asked them to make more parking. They were asked to fix the problem, and cleared out an area to try to get more parking. The two buildings combined should have over 100 parking spaces. There are only 58 parking spaces. She pointed out where she had developed parking spaces. By filling in the area with a septic system, Mr. Dick eliminated the parking. This was done even though septic and pump tanks can be designed to be parked on. Their engineers told them that this could be done easily, even though it was not done. There are also other places where the septic and pump tanks could have gone, but that was not done. She stated it was questionable whether or not Mr. Dick had the right to access their property for _ ingress and egress. The easement Mr. Dick has states there is limited or no parking rights to their land, and just a minimum of 30 feet ingress and egress to get to his property to put in a septic system. As you can see, the septic system fills up the full lot. There is no land. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH COOPERSTEIN APPEAL-NOVEMBER 19,1996 Page 3 of 19 Therefore all of Mr. Dick's construction garbage bins are still on their property. She presented a photo showing her property (Exhibit 4), where bulldozers and trucks went back and forth clearing the dirt and placing it in another area, which she believed was a major trespass. The health regulations specifically and logically require that when someone else's property is used to that extent, you are supposed to have an easement. The ingress and egress does not need to be quarreled over. However, when a septic system has to be dug on their property in order to install it, and when their property is used or abused, it is different, a construction easement should have been needed. The regulation states that prior to beginning the construction process, a person proposing the installation or repair of the system, shall develop and submit the following to the local health officer and obtain approval: identification of existing and proposed encumbrances affecting system placement. This makes you think that the system is totally on Mr. Dick's property. She continued to read from the regulation: including legal access documents. Board Member Cady asked.if Mrs. Cooperstein's appeal was on Mr. Dick's permit. Mrs. Cooperstein answered that their appeal is of Mr. Dick's permit. They believe that Mr. Dick's permit should not have been issued, or at least not in this size. The permit represents significant over-development in violation of the health regulation. Information relating to this has been submitted to the Health Officer. She may not be submitting all of it today. There was more information. They have had expert witnesses testify in regard to the specific details of Mr. Dick's system design. She would not be going into the engineering problems today. The basic problem was that this property has been over-developed in violation of the health regulations. It was permitted without any construction permit. The owner should have asked them for construction permits. He never did. He never asked. The system was not a repair. It was not just putting back a septic system of the same size. The original system was one-half of the size that was in this proposal. There have been no changes in the design regulations which require a larger system. Mr. Dick has over-burdened his property. When the system was planned it was over-developed. It provided for no parking." Even if Mr. Dick used some of their parking, he still did not have enough parking for his parcel. This new permit depicts further over-development. All the development on Mr. Dick's property affects their property because Mr. Dick does not have enough property. It was not a typical repair of a septic system. This was far different. It has eliminated some of the parking on Mr. Dick's own parcel, which puts that parking over to their parcel. And, they do not have any extra parking spaces. They do not quite have their legal number of parking spaces. When a permit is requested, the size of the system is based on the number of employees. A person must have 15 gallons of septic capacity per each employee. On the water usage, there needs to be extra capacity if there are items that use a lot of water. The old system was 442 gallons. If the system was permitted according to the 15 gallons, what happens when you double the size of that system? You allow twice the amount of employees on that lot. It was basically developing the lot for greater capability, greater commercial business, more employees, and greater use. At whose expense? Mr. Dick was not providing his own parking, they were. There are also a number of design problems in violation of the health WACs. The design flow projections were unknown and unproven. The past history of the water district readings showed MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH COOPERSTEIN APPEAL-NOVEMBER 19,1996 Page 4 of 19 that the volume was far in excess of the 816 gallons he was planning for, and far in excess of the 442 gallons of the original permit which was plenty big enough for a standard office building. Mr. Dick 's system failed a year and one-half ago. It took them from July until sometime in November to submit a plan. A hearing had been held in December, 1995. At that time, she had presented a number of objections and they were all overruled. They were, at that time, given 2 weeks notice of the hearing, and she did not have time to totally understand the health regulations, but they did present a number of objections. The biggest issue being that he should not be able to double the size of the system and allow over-development. At that time, they did not realize that this related to the health regulations. She questioned how a system could be approved for 816 gallons when the past history on this lot showed that there was months of water usage in the amounts of 1,300 gallons. At that time, it was decided to throw out the old readings. The medical center had moved out, and they were using less water. Even though, she called up the water district and asked how much the medical center was using at their new location, and she was told that the minimal amount was less than 120 gallons per day. The average had been 1,000 gallons per day, and it was not the medical center who was using it. They were using numbers with one-half of the building being vacated, and after that a brand new part-time tenant (physical therapist). She disagreed with the figures, but the system had been approved. The numbers had been higher than what they had put in their design flow so the Department of Health cancelled Mr. Dick's permit because there was not enough capacity. They were not concerned about the 816 gallons like she was, the Department of Health was concerned that it looked like more than 816 gallons. Mr. Dick revised his plan and presented it in June of 1996. The new plan was submitted, and they appealed immediately. They held their appeal before the Health Officer in August. That appeal was denied. Basically, they did not go through much of the material. Since it was a repair, the Health Department's position was that anything could basically be done. This was not a typical repair. This was a property with all kinds of problems, that are their problems. Therefore they were asking the Board to please reconsider. At the last hearing, they did not go through many of the WACs. They did review design criteria during that meeting, and their engineer and registered sanitarian's letters were submitted. She did not pay for the professionals to attend the meeting. Nothing happened. They basically said it was fine. If the past history of the water district readings of this property were correct, then the septic tank and pump tank sizes were grossly undersized according to state technical review requirements and WAC requirements. Mr. Dick installed a drainfield in a 10 foot wide area at the top of a slope. The drainfield is almost up to the property line on top of someone else's slope. The WAC states you should have a 5 foot setback from the building and a 5 foot setback from the property line. There is neither setback. It is a 10 foot wide area, there is no way to have the drainfield and setbacks. They have also placed the septic system one to one and one-half feet from the property line. The property line is at the top of a hill. It does not quite meet the definition of a cut-bank which would require a 30 feet setback. Despite the fact that it is on some type of a slope, they did not justify or consider the technical problems. There is Type IA soil in this area, which has no cleansing property in terms of septic ability. They did put sand in. Not only was the septic tank MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH ^ COOPERSTEIN APPEAL-NOVEMBER 19,1996 Page 5 of 19 on top of the existing slope, it was above it. There was a dip, so they raised part of the land. To put a system in, it has to be level, so that the drainage does not go to the low end. A good section of the back drainfield is raised. The drainfield is planned for one foot below the new ground level. There is a foot of cover, and then the drainfield is the next foot down. She submitted photos of this area (Exhibit 5). Normally there is a 5 foot setback on level land. There are drain pipes which are placed in a raised section of land only one and one-half feet back from the edge of the top of someone's slope. They listened to part of this complaint during the August hearing, but not all of it. They listened to the fact that it was leaning against Mrs. Cokelet's fence. Mrs. Cokelet was sick today and had asked that she speak for her. Mr. Dick sold Mrs. Cokelet the road right behind his building which leads to her house and acreage. Chairperson Hunter and-Board Member Cady commented that they were acquainted with Mrs. Cokelet. Mrs. Cooperstein commented that this drainfield has not just waived the 5 feet setback requirements for a flat piece of ground, but it has waived setback requirements for the top of someone else's slope. Not only that, it was not even level with the old ground level of the slope, it has been raised and it has Type IA soil in between. Board Member Cady asked if the slope belonged to Mrs. Cooperstein. Mrs. Cooperstein replied that it was owned by Mrs. Cokelet. Some changes have been made since the last hearing. They did listen that it looked rather bad. But all Mr. Dick has done is made the problem worse. The Health Officer had said that a bulkhead or something should be built to keep the dirt off of Mrs. Cokelet's fence. The other problem was that the guidelines state there has to be sidewalls next to the drainfield. Obviously, this was missed in the planning and the review of the plan because there were no six inches of sand on the sides of the drainfield, and this regulation pertains to flat ground. They have also taken some of that one and one-half feet of dirt, which at least provided some protection of seepage from the drainfield, and replaced it with railroad ties. The dirt has been eliminated, but she questioned whether these railroad ties would-act as a barrier to seepage. Basically, it was providing no health protection in this back area. Another issue was that there was minimal monitoring of the system. It has been basically monitored once a year. There are flow problems and a possibly undersized septic tank. Chairperson Hunter asked that Mrs. Cooperstein end her opening statements in five minutes. Board Member Faughender asked if Mrs. Cooperstein believed Mr. Dick's system was failing. She replied that she did not believe it was. It was installed during the last July 4th weekend. However, she did believe it failed for one month without alarms going off. Mrs. Cooperstein asked that the Board review the first building permit application issued in 1978. It was permitted for a real estate office and two lease office spaces. It was to include just toilet __-1 facilities, no other installed equipment. This application was signed by the owner, Michael Dick. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH COOPERSTEIN APPEAL-NOVEMBER 19,1996 Page 6 of 19 The original plumbing permit also showed that it was permitted for basic toilet facilities. Three bathrooms, hot water heater and one extra sink. This would be for a basic office building. The original septic permit showed a plan for a septic tank in the back corner and the drainfield going along the back of the building. There are no property lines marked at all on this permit, which would make it difficult for anyone to interpret it. The application had been tentatively approved, evidently, showing that the septic system that Mr. Dick originally asked to put in was on his own property. However, the next document shows that the county rejected the west drainfield area as a suitable site so much that they basically allowed him to put in a dry well. Even though it was not shown on the application, the dry well turned out to be mostly on the adjacent property with no easements. And shortly after, the adjacent property was sold. Mr. Dick had been told that he could not put a drainfield in the back of his building because it was an inappropriate location. She did not know if it was required to be placed on the adjacent lot, or if Mr. Dick chose to put it there. Basically, Mr. Dick had no property back then to fit a septic system on his own property. It had to be placed, assumably, on the adjacent property because the proposal he had did not work. Mr. Dick owned this adjacent property with two other developers and then he sold it off to them. Since they purchased it, Mr. Dick never told them the dry well was there and did not ask for an easement. He did not correct his mistake. There was over-development at that time. This property was not built on prior to the health regulations. The state regulations were passed in 1974. The parcel was subdivided in 1975. The parcel was built on in 1978. In addition, the design criteria in the health regulations and the EPA Design Manual do not call for changes that would require a bigger system. The commercial design requirement of 15 gallons per employee has not changed. Nothing has happened to require any increase in capacity to allow an exemption from the regulations. This property stretched the 1974 health regulations at the time it was developed. The WACs back then stated there could not be any septic system on a lot less than 12,500 square feet. Mr. Dick did not have this size of property. His property was approximately 11,000 square feet in size. He also built his building so big that he could not meet the setback requirements except for a possible small section at the front courtyard. Basically, he over-built his building. He built it almost to the property line. Chairperson Hunter stated that since the hearing was scheduled for two hours, he would ask that Mrs. Cooperstein discontinue her presentation at this time, to give the others time to make their presentation. Mrs. Cooperstein asked for another two minutes to finish her presentation on the current issue. She stated that the WACs also required Mr. Dick to sign an Operation and Maintenance Covenant because the system exceeded the flow level per square feet. This covenant stated that there must be perpetual management and operation of the septic system because there was too much septic waste per square foot. There was too much septic for this property. The reason for this perpetual management and operation agreement was to ensure that the septic was not increased any further, and to make sure that the health risks of having that much septic system were monitored. Mr. Dick developed and sold off his adjacent septic site with no adherence to the operation and maintenance agreement he signed back in 1978. He did not keep it at 442 gallons per day. He did not have it perpetually managed, because he has exceeded it. It has MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH COOPERSTEIN APPEAL-NOVEMBER 19,1996 Page 7 of 19 gone up to 1,150 gallons during some months in recent history. This system was not a standard repair. It was not putting back what was there. This property had septic limitations. It meets the definition of an expansion which means it would need to meet all the current regulations. There was also a WAC which states that a system can only be built that exceeds the minimum land area when all the other health regulations are fulfilled. These minimum land area regulations have been in existence since before it was built. Kim Lincoln, Environmental Health Specialist, submitted Exhibit 6, which was the Health Department's packet of information. She then presented the chronology of Mr. Dick's permit and Mrs. Cooperstein's appeal. She noted that numerous telephone conversations between Mrs. Cooperstein and various staff of the Health Department were not mentioned in the chronology. On June 19, 1995, a complaint was received by the Mason County Department of Health Services (MCDHS). June 22, 1995, the complaint was investigated by John Denison, Environmental Health Specialist. John observed at the site that the dry well which was installed sometime in 1978, was found to be on the Cooperstein property. The dry well had been dug up prior to John's on-site review, and effluent was observed coming over the lid of the drainfield, establishing it was a failure at that point. On June 23, 1995, a water sample was taken by Mark Tompkins of the effluent which was rising over the dry well and it was found to be 2,400 fecal coliform per 100 milliliter. July 17, 1995, the failure was turned over to Kim Lincoln for repair. July 24, 1995, an initial letter was mailed out to the property owner notifying of the failure. August 9, 1995, on-site meeting with the property manager, designer and Kim Lincoln. Repair permit was received on October 6, 1995. On October 11, 1995, a site evaluation was done by Kim Lincoln. On December 11, 1995, the design was received. On December 12, 1995, appeals to the issuance of the permit were received by both Janice Cooperstein and Mrs. V.E. Cokelet. December 12, 1995, a design stakeout inspection was conducted by Kim Lincoln and Mark Tompkins. December 14, 1995, the design was approved by MCDHS. The first appeal hearing was held on December 21, 1995, before the Health Officer. December 27, 1995, there was a letter received by MCDHS from Janice Cooperstein stating additional concerns. On January 4, 1996, the Health Officer's determination was sent out. On January 5, 1996, a letter dated January 2, 1996, from Steve Wecker, witness for Janice Cooperstein, was received by the Health Department. The letter detailed Mr. Wecker's concerns regarding the design. His main concerns were the design flows and the waste strength. The Board asked who Mr. Wecker was. Mrs. Cooperstein replied that he was a registered sanitarian. Ms. Lincoln commented that Mr. Wecker was a professional in the septic tank field. Chairperson Hunter asked where Mr. Wecker was employed. Mrs. Cooperstein answered that Mr. Wecker worked for Pac-Tech Engineering at the time he wrote the letter. Ms. Lincoln stated that Mr. Wecker was now employed by Stuth Company. On January 22, 1996, a letter was received by MCDHS from Mrs. Cooperstein _ detailing more concerns regarding design flows. January 23, 1996, a letter was received from Mrs. Cooperstein detailing more concerns regarding the design. More specifically, the design flows, safety margins, and the maintenance and operation. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH COOPERSTEIN APPEAL-NOVEMBER 19,1996 Page 8 of 19 January 30, 1996, a letter was sent to Michael Dick from MCDHS stating that new water readings indicated that flows were underestimated and that a new desig would need to be submitted. On February 10, 1996, a letter was received from Bob Slee, ;operty ��nager for Michael Dick. The letter and a follow-up telephone call confirmed that water saving devices would be implemented throughout the building. During the telephone conversation, it was agreed that after the devices were in place monitoring of the water use would be done. On March 28, 1996, a telephone call was received from Bob Slee and Al Everson. An x-ray machine used by the dentist was found to be using 70 gallons of water an hour, which was a tremendous amount. This machine was updated and modified to become a recycling machine that no longer sent any waste water out to the system. March 28, 1996, a letter received by MCDHS from Janice Cooperstein detailing more concerns regarding the design, and stating the repair was an expansion. April 11, 1996, the design was submitted and on April 19, 1996, the design was reviewed and failed. On April 29, 1996, a letter was received by Dr. Trucksess, Mason County Health Officer, from Mrs. Cooperstein. This letter was immediately forwarded to the Health Department due to a conflict of interest since Dr. Trucksess would be hearing another appeal. On May 2, 1996, a letter was sent to Janice Cooperstein from Brad Banner stating that her letter to Dr. Trucksess had been forwarded to him due to a conflict of interest. May 10, 1996, a design was submitted, reviewed, and placed on hold for additional .information. On June 26, 1996, the permit was conditionally approved. On June 30, 1996, another appeal was submitted by Janice Cooperstein. July 1, 1996, a letter was sent to the property manager, designer, and installer stating conditions of approval. July 2, 1996, a telephone call to Brad Banner from Bob Slee,Property Manager. Mr. Slee was inquiring about what regulations the Health Department had prohibiting the installation of an approved design, even if it was under appeal. On July 2, 1996, a memo was faxed out to Mr. Slee regarding his telephone inquiry. The memo stated that the MCDHS had no regulations regarding this, but any installation should be done at the owner's full risk. On July 7, 1996, an appeal was submitted by Vivene Cokelet. On July 8, 1996, the final inspection failed. It was approved for cover only and still needed an inspection of the pump tank and alarm panel, which were the only reasons why it failed. July 11, 1996, requested information was sent to both appellants. On July 16, 1996, a final inspection was completed and the system passed. July 25, 1996, a letter was received by the MCDHS from Janice Cooperstein. This letter stated her grounds for appeal. She stated, in the letter, that the design was deficient, repair was an expansion, the system was too large for the site, the owner did not have easement from her so the system could be installed and maintained, and that the installation involved risk or harm to and trespass over the adjacent properties. July 29, 1996, installer telephoned MCDHS because a roofing contractor had driven over and damaged portions of the front disposal area. A maintenance permit was applied for and the damaged portions were replaced immediately. On August 9, 1996, a letter was received by the MCDHS from Steve Wecker, Registered Sanitarian, a witness for Janice Cooperstein. This letter detailed Mr. Wecker's concerns with the design and installation. Specifically, the design flows, that it was an expansion not a repair, that the operation and maintenance was inadequate and installation problems. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH COOPERSTEIN APPEAL-NOVEMBER 19,1996 Page 9 of 19 On August 22, 1996, an appeal hearing was held before the Health Officer. On August 28, 1996, the MCDHS was notified by telephone that the high water alarm had sounded. September 5, 1996, the final conclusions made by the Health Officer were sent out to the appellants. One piece of the finding was, "I uphold the Mason County Health Department's approval of the on- site septic system . . . the following conditions do apply: 1) no automatic override mechanism is allowed on the system, and 2) that the fill soil impacting Vi Cokelet's property must be bulkheaded or mediated in some acceptable manner." On September 19, 1996, a letter was sent to Bob Slee, Property Manager, from Kim Lincoln. This letter notified the owner that the MCDHS knew that the alarm had sounded but they had not yet received the required information from the O & M professional. On that same day, the MCDHS received a fax from the O & M professional notifying that the alarm sounded and stating the observations he made and the actions taken. September 19, 1996, notified that the automatic override had been removed. On September 20, 1996, a complaint was received from Mrs. Cokelet. Complainant stated she was smelling an odor. On September 20, 1996, Grant Holdcroft investigated the complaint but was unable to detect any odor or problem on the site. He did check out neighboring systems and could not substantiate any problems anywhere around the area. On September 30, 1996, the entire building was checked for leaks. Several toilets were still having problems, and all seven were replaced with low-flow models. On October 28, 1996, the bulkhead along the Cokelet property was completed. On November 1, 1996, a copy of the letter from Eric Knopt, the O & M professional, to Bob Slee was received. The letter listed the O & M professional's observations of the system. All the letters referenced were included in the presented packet. Mark Tompkins, Registered Sanitarian, stated that the appeal of this design was based on two things. Whether public health was protected and whether or not it meets the intent of the regulations. He believed that the design meets both these things. He submitted Exhibit 7 pertaining to design and installation features and repair versus expansion. He remarked that first it needed to be corrected that the system was designed and installed to treat and dispose of 816 gallons per day. This flow rate was based on actual water usage of the facility. This was done throughout Mason County on other commercial systems. It was also done this way throughout the state. It was the most practical way to design or repair a system since actual water usage figures were used. The EPA design manual is consulted in cases where the actual design flows were not known, like a new system. But in this case, there was a water meter on the building and they were able to determine the actual usage. Board Member Cady asked if the building was fully rented when the flows were taken. Mr. Tompkins replied that it was done over a course of several months and at different times it was fully occupied but sometimes it was not. Mr. Tompkins stated the design and installation contains a dose timer which is a control on the pump which limits the amount of water that can enter the drainfield. It limits the flow to 816 gallons per day. Any excess water usage during a day would be stored in the pump tank or surge tank that is available. There is a 3,200 gallon pump tank, which is a very large tank for this type of system. The system has been in operation for the past four months. During this operating period the MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH ` COOPERSTEIN APPEAL-NOVEMBER 19,1996 Page 10 of 19 average daily flows have been less than the design rate of 816 gallons per day on 3 out of the 4 months. Water readings were presented and marked as Exhibit 7. Mr. Tompkins stated that a portion of the readings were prepared by Bob Slee, but from January to September the readings were from the Belfair Water District. There was a high in September of 2,883 gallons per day which the property owners were trying to understand because it was much higher than what had occurred. There was a low of 596 gallons in a 30 day period. Also, since the low-flow fixtures were installed at the end of September, the daily readings ranged from a high of 620 gallons per day to a low of 44 gallons per day. These readings were taken by Bob Slee but they do match the figures taken by the Belfair Water District. -Board Member Cady asked if the beauty shop was still in the building. Mr. Tompkins answered that it was. Mr. Tompkins commented that the installed system was a sand-lined trench system. It utilizes sand and pressure distribution to provide treatment. He submitted an exert out of the Sampling Guidelines for 1996 which explained this type of treatment (Exhibit 9). The system provides a known level of treatment. These systems have been studied throughout the United States so there is a known level of treatment of the effluent quality coming out of the bottom of the trench. The BODs, which are the biochemical oxygen demand, are reduced down to 5 milligrams per liter. The TSS or total suspended solids are also less than 5 milligrams per liter. The fecal coliform count is less than 500 colonies per 100 milliliter. All of this treatment takes place prior to being disposed of in the native soil on the site. The holes are anywhere from 48 to 60 inches deep. This system has 2 feet of sand and one foot of cover so there is an additional 2 feet of soil underneath the bottom of the sand which would provide for additional treatment and disposal. The system incorporates frequent small doses which allows for unsaturated conditions and which helps aid in treatment. Mr. Tompkins submitted a copy of the first page of a report completed by Terry Bounds, Professional Engineer (Exhibit 10). This document explained the advantages of having increased, smaller doses as it pertains to the effect of treatment. In the last paragraph it stated that increasing the dosing frequency (number of occurrences over a given time period) reduces the volume of waste water applied per dose and increases coliform removal. Short doses followed by extended resting periods spread throughout the day increases the liquid to media contact time,which enhances microbial activity and improves treatment. Microbial treatment was what they were looking for in sewage treatment. It is how the pathogens, BODs, and TSS are removed from the system. The system has an ongoing operation and maintenance agreement which is attached to the deed. The operation and maintenance must follow the adopted Mason County Operation and Maintenance Program. It is currently being performed by Indigo Designs. The professional is certified in Kitsap County to do operation and maintenance, and has provided reports on this system. Board Member Cady asked the frequency of reporting. Ms. Lincoln responded that a copy of the agreement was in the packet. She believed the system was to be inspected yearly. Mr. Tompkins stated that Mrs. Cooperstem had brought up the septic tank size, stating that it was grossly undersized. The state regulations require that the tank be one and one-half times the daily flow. This system has a septic tank size of 1,600 gallons. One and one-half times the daily flow of 816 gallons per day would be 1,200 gallons. The septic tank, therefore, was properly MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH COOPERSTEIN APPEAL-NOVEMBER 19,1996 Page 11 of 19 sized for this system. The pump tank was sized at 3,200 gallons which provides sufficient area for daily flows and any excess flows. It has an alarm float which provides more storage in the event that the pump burns out and the alarm goes off, and the pump needs to be replaced. Based on this information, he believed the design would protect public health and there should be no problem with surfacing effluent or a breakout of sewage. Another issue which was raised was whether or not this was a repair or an expansion. Definition of a repair from Chapter 246.272 WAC On-Site Sewage System Rules and Regulations states that a repair means restoration by reconstruction or relocation or replacement of a failed on-site sewage system. Expansion means a change in a residence, facility, site or use that: a) causes an on-site sewage system to exceed its existing treatment or disposal capability. For example, when a residence is increased from two to three bedrooms or a change in use from an office to a restaurant; or b) reduces the treatment or disposal capability of the existing on-site sewage system or the reserve area. For example, when a building is placed over a reserve area. This system was designed and installed based on the facility maintaining similar use. The footprint of the building was not expanded. It is the same sized building with similar office-type use that was in the building when it was determined to have failed. Based on this, repair criteria was followed as outlined in the RCW. The RCW states that if it is a repair, a conforming system has to be installed or off-site disposal is needed if a conforming system cannot be put in. If neither one of those are available, then you keep going down the list. The next option would be to connect to a treatment facility which would be a sewer treatment plant which is not available in the area. Down from there is a section called Table 6 Repairs which is used when a conforming system is not possible and the system cannot be connected to a sewer treatment plant. This section gives specifics on how to maximize the distance from various components so public health is protected. This relates to the maximum distances to wells, drinking water, surface water, all of those things, to reduce setbacks accordingly so that a repair can be achieved on the property. That was done in this case. Board Member Cady asked about the variance issue. Mr. Tompkins replied that variances were not required when a Table 6 Repair was completed. It spells out in WAC 246.272 that the system is accommodated the best way it can be. For instance, if there is a lot that only has room available to put the system closer to the foundation, you can decrease the separation from the foundation or property lines. Board Member Cady asked if Mr. Tompkins felt it was the responsibility of the Health Department to see that everything was done correctly on the owner's property. Mr. Tompkins stated that they require a scaled plot plan showing property lines. It is the designer's responsibility to draw those lot lines with them. His understanding was that the entire system was contained within the property. He was not aware if there was any spillage of dirt over to the adjoining property line. A lot of times on these tight sites, it is sometimes hard to prevent that but there are no components off Mr. Dick's lot. Everything is contained within the lot. Chairperson Hunter commented that without a complete survey it would be hard to tell. It was up to the applicant, designer and builder to give the Health Department the correct information. If they do not, it is their peril. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH COOPERSTEIN APPEAL-NOVEMBER 19,1996 Page 12 of 19 Board Member Faughender asked how the slope situation by Mrs. Cokelet's property was addressed. Mr. Tompkins responded that the slope there was not a cut-bank. There are no required setbacks to banks unless they are a cut-bank. Ms. Lincoln and he went out last winter to see if there was any water breaking out of the bank, and there was not. This system is not perched right on top of the knoll. The vents slope down to the road. The system is installed three feet below the original grade. There was some backfill up there which would increase what would appear to be overhang onto the fence. The bottom of the sand is down three feet from the original grade. There is two feet of sand, and then about a foot of drain rock, a foot of cover, then the excess cover on top of that. That is why it appeared to be so thick in that one spot. It was extra fill, or cover, there. Board Member Cady asked about the six inch sand sidewall issue. Mr. Tompkins replied that was an interesting point. In 1995, that requirement was not in the sand filter guidelines. When the first design was submitted, it was not part of the guidelines or commonly done in this county. It was not required as part of the design. When the system was redesigned, it was only focusing on the design flows not changing the parameters underneath of it. When it was approved, it was approved based on fixing the design for the gallons per day and getting it back down to an acceptable level. That was all that was really addressed at that time. Board Member Cady wondered if the rules had changed in the mean time. Mr. Tompkins responded that the guidelines for 1996 do require that the sand is out there. Essentially what happens in a sand filter system is that orifices are drilled every three feet and a small volume of water comes out of those orifices. A company out of Oregon has shown that about 90% of the effluent goes down into a small cone of about 14 inches. So, the majority of effluent is contained within a small area of that sand. The increased dosing and resting periods allow for increased aeration which will prevent the build-up of the biomat which is also beneficial; which this system has. Board Member Faughender remarked that the Health Officer's findings noted that something should be done about the wall. He understood that what was done was the adding of the railroad ties. The order also stated that it had to be acceptable to the county and so on. The appellant stated that this was not an effective treatment. He wondered if the Health Department looked at and approved this method, and if it was approved, on what basis was it approved. Mr. Tompkins responded that the material laying on the fence was fill material. It was not part of the sand trench itself. In this case, it was strictly to keep the fill off the fence. It was acceptable to the Health Department. Chairperson Hunter asked if Robert Slee, who was present representing Michael Dick, had comments to make. Mr. Slee stated that this whole thing started when they came onto their property and destroyed the system which was there, whether it was working properly or not he did not know. But, after they dug it up, it wasn't. So, that is what started this whole thing. If there is a problem with their system or in the past had a problem, it was because they destroyed the original one. He did not know if that had been made clear yet or not. Chairperson Hunter asked who Mr. Slee was referring to as "they." Mr. Slee replied he was referring to the Coopersteins. Chairperson Hunter asked for further questions from the Board. Board Member Faughender MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH COOPERSTEIN APPEAL-NOVEMBER 19,1996 Page 13 of 19 asked about the overcast onto the Cooperstein property of dirt and debris during the construction. Mr. Slee responded that he believed the pictures shown by Mrs. Cooperstein were the piles of dirt on her parking lot while the system was under construction. At this point, they have a legal easement. The police were called and shown the easement and they went away. She has a problem with our easement. That is going to court and should not have anything to do with this. They have a legal easement and that is all he has to say. To access the property, to make repairs, or to install any system, electrical, sewer, or utility. Board Member Faughender asked if this easement was in the deed. Mr. Slee responded yes. Chairperson Hunter stated that matter was going to court or in court, and it was beyond their jurisdiction by far. Board Member Cady asked if letters from Mrs. Cokelet were included in the Health Department's packet. Ms. Lincoln replied that Mrs. Cokelet did not really ever submit any letters. She did fill out a form, which was included with the Cooperstein .correspondence.. Mrs. Cokelet's basic issue was concern over the back portion of the drainfield which abutted her bank and the fill problem which occurred. The Health Officer mediated this when he required the bulkhead. Mrs. Cooperstein stated she believed Mrs. Cokelet had submitted a letter. Mrs. Cokelet had attended the last two hearings and had submitted pictures during those hearings. Ms. Lincoln stated that information was part of the appeal section located in the packet. Chairperson Hunter asked who Mr. Garland had represented. Mrs. Cooperstein answered that he was Mrs. Cokelet's attorney. Chairperson Hunter remarked that in reading the Health Officer's findings, it stated that the system should be examined quarterly for the first year and then every six months. Ms. Lincoln responded that at that time, the system had been different. It included an aerobic unit that met a treatment standard. Any time an aerobic unit was used, there would be more frequent operation and maintenance required. Mrs. Cooperstein asked if the design had dropped the aerobic unit since December and now had been replaced with a sand filter. Board Member Cady reviewed Mrs. Cokelet's written concerns and reported that Mrs. Cokelet's first concern was that the land in question was several feet above hers and the proposed sewage was to be placed so near her property line that sewage would drain down to her driveway and leach out the hillside causing a health problem. She asked if these issues were being monitored. Mr. Tompkins stated it would be part of the operation and maintenance to make sure there was no surfacing sewage. Board Member Cady wondered if this would be just once per year. Mr. Tompkins replied yes, this was part of the Table 6 Repairs in the WAC. When there was a Table 6 Repair, there needed to be an annual inspection of the sand filters. He had not see any water coming from the bank during the wet weather in 1995. Even though, any material coming from the bank would be treated. It would have gone through the sand and the treatment he had mentioned previously. Board Member Faughender asked if Mrs. Cokelet was party to today's appeal. Ms. Lincoln stated they ran into a little problem regarding that. Mrs. Cokelet telephoned her day before yesterday and asked why she did not receive notification of this hearing. The Health Department did not receive an appeal form from her, only from Janice Cooperstein. Mrs. Cokelet had stated she wanted to be part of the appeal but was unable to attend today. Technically, she believed it was up to the Board whether or not they wanted to allow Mrs. Cokelet to be part of this appeal or MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH COOPERSTEIN APPEAL-NOVEMBER 19,1996 Page 14 of 19 not. They did not receive an appeal request from her. Mrs. Cooperstein responded that in order to make the October date, she had sent an appeal with just her name on it. An appeal was also sent in with both their names at a later date. Board Member Faughender asked if Mrs. Cokelet had signed the appeal. Mrs. Cooperstein replied that she did not physically see her sign it, but Mrs. Cokelet had told her she signed it and had mailed it to the Health Department. Board Member Cady commented that there was an appeal form from Mrs. Cokelet in the packet. Ms. Lincoln stated that they had not received an appeal from Mrs. Cokelet for this particular appeal. The form from Mrs. Cokelet was the original appeal. Mrs. Cooperstein commented that Mrs. Cokelet told her she had signed another appeal and mailed it. Mrs. Cokelet had been out of town during the October meeting. When the meeting had been delayed until November she had asked Mrs. Cokelet if she was going to attend and Mrs. Cokelet was not aware of the date. Chairperson Hunter stated that if Mrs. Cokelet was party to the original appeal, she probably should have been notified that there was another hearing today. She was-aware of it, but was unable to attend. She could have testified today. Mrs. Cooperstein stated that Mrs. Cokelet was ill. Chairperson Hunter asked for additional questions or comments from the Health Department prior to Mrs. Cooperstein's rebuttal. Board Member Faughender commented that he has heard a lot of testimony relating to periods of time in the 1970s. He failed to see the relevancy, and he would like Mrs. Cooperstein to address what was at the site now and why she felt it should not be there. Mrs. Cooperstein responded that the relevancy was basically that when someone receives a building permit . . . Board Member Faughender interjected that he felt Mrs. Cooperstein was taking up her time on items he did not feel he could consider. He was not there in 1974. Mrs. Cooperstein commented that if a building . . . Board Member Faughender interjected that if she spent her time on that it would not be spent on the thing that was being appealed which is the repair. Mrs. Cooperstein asked him to wait a second. The Health Department has focused on the simple design of the repair. And she has some real problems with the simple design of the repair. Board Member Faughender asked if that was what she was appealing. Mrs. Cooperstein replied that was part of the appeal. But, no, it was not the basic part of the appeal. Board Member Faughender commented that it was very clear to all of them that they were not going to go out there and tear the building down. Mrs. Cooperstein responded that they were not asking them to do that. Board Member Faughender stated that what happened in 1978 was not what the Board was considering. They were considering a permit of the last two years due to the failure of the system. Mrs. Cooperstein stated that was correct. If someone asked for a permit for a standard office building today, a permit could be received for exactly the existing original system of 440 gallons per day and that would be plenty adequate for the real estate office that it was built for. Also, there was a real problem with the flow figures. The system was approved in December at 816 and then they approved it again in July at 816. In July when it was approved, the designer went to the building and read the water meter for 13 days and came back and said the numbers looked like they were less than 816. One of the days they were higher, approximately 900, but on the average they were less than 816. Averages are not supposed to be good enough for septic systems. You are supposed to build for the largest MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH COOPERSTEIN APPEAL-NOVEMBER 19,1996 Page 15 of 19 number. The next month, the same water meter said that the flow was 853 gallons per day for a whole month and those numbers were not submitted by the designer. She wondered why the April figures of 1,139 per day were not reported. He reported 13 days of meter readings and ignored months later on. Also in July it was 750 per day, almost the maximum capacity. In August it was 856. In September it was 2,900 gallons per day. September was an oddity, they claim that the toilets were leaking and it does not fit the past history so she believed something was wrong. But interestingly enough in September it was over 816 gallons per day for too many days. Their alarm was supposed to be triggered if the pump tank fills. That September volume should have filled the pump tank just about every day. The owner and installer, she believed through discussions with Ms. Lincoln, never called the Health Department with any report of overburdens or alarms ringing or any other problems. One day she had called because her tenants, at the beginning of September, were complaining to her about this loud alarm that was going off. They had gone out and saw where the alarm was, so she had called Ms. Lincoln and asked what was happening. Ms. Lincoln had telephoned the O & M professional, and they had said he had been there one day when the alarm went off. The alarm rang one day out of a month of leaking toilets was the rationalization that they told the Health Department for the high flows. That was what she had been told. She would expect the alarm to go off more than one day and the one day the O & M professional went out there he did not know what the maximum settings were and thought that everything looked fine except the float being set too low. He moved the float up and did not realize that the float was supposed to be low enough to give people some warning that its capacity was being reached. They are given two days to get on site when the alarm goes off, so mean time you potentially have the alarm going off for two days. Secondly, if they were at maximum capacity of 816 gallons and the O & M professional set it for only 800 gallons, there would be overflows in one day and they have two days to notify the O & M professional. There would basically be a health problem. What has happened, though, is that last month the water meter reading came in at about 300 gallons per day, she believed. The readings have gone up and down for years. They have been basing these readings on one month and then they have explanations why they are high, like the x-ray machine and the leaky toilets which took one and one-half years to fix since the failure. You would think if you were having a hard time squeezing a system into a site, you would be looking at things like leaky toilets. The data on which the design flow has been based is minimal. The July plan was based on 13 days. That was all they had at that time. However, there were meter readings showing higher readings for months. Since then, September showed an astronomical number. August showed it as being too high. July was almost too high. It could have been the leaky toilets. If so, this was really an expansion. The system was not only more than what it was permitted for, it was more than what that building needs, maybe. Either way, they have used the definition of a repair. They have ignored the fact that they have defined this as a Table 6 Repair. It has not gone'through the waiver process at all. Table 6 Repairs mean a repair or a replacement of an existing on-site sewage system because it cannot meet the setback requirements. This plan not only cannot meet the setback requirements, it cannot meet many of the other requirements either. This was not a repair. If you look at the simple expansion definition. Expansion means a change in a site that reduces the disposal capability of the existing current on-site sewage system or even a reserve area. For example, when a building is placed over a reserve area. So, if something is done to MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH COOPERSTEIN APPEAL-NOVEMBER 19,1996 Page 16 of 19 eliminate the reserve area, then you have an expansion. They did something that eliminated their whole septic area. This is an expansion. The owner sold off the land in which his septic site was located. And, he did not remember to record an easement for parking which he had at that same time. The owner also had a second chance to fix this lack of site. He owned three other acres. He could have run a line to Parcel D, but he did not. He sold off the entire site in 1988, and he had already had a failure in 1987 which he fixed but did not get fully permitted. He did have as-builts done. This owner has caused his own problem. Also, expansion means a change in a facility or a use which causes an on-site septic system to exceed its existing disposal capability. If these toilets have brought them down to an average of 300 gallons per day. If it really is that low, they do not need a system which is twice that big. They were asking that the owner be restricted in size, which means restricted in development, to their existing, original system. This would be the original use which would limit the parking, the using up of their land, and shifting of more parking onto their property. This was not a standard repair. Repairs are usually to homes built prior to the passage of any health regulations- prior to 1974, which she understands was half of the homes in Mason County. It is a major problem. Chairperson Hunter commented there were regulations long before 1974. Mrs. Cooperstein stated yes, but not the state regulations. She believed the state established the 120 gallons per day. Any home which cannot meet the current capacity regulations was built prior to 1974. This was not standard. She did not believe it was the intent of the regulations to approve a septic system at twice the size. Mr. Dick should have to develop it at the original permitted level and justify it and make sure it was safe, and that the adjacent properties were not damaged by it. The west drainfield area was a serious problem. Her engineers, who researched the sand side filters, found that the regulation not requiring them lasted only about 6 months. The requirement had been in the regulations years before that and was back in the regulations by November, 1995. The December, 1995, plan was submitted after that. And, even if that was not accurate, there was no sand filter in the December, 1995 plan. The sand filter was not proposed until June or July, 1996, a few months ago. By that time, the sand filter requirements for side walls was back in and it was a must requirement, and they have not done it. They have not justified how required setbacks have gone down to one and one-half feet to the top of the slope with no side walls. It was a very dangerous risk to public health. Mrs. Cokelet was also concerned about widening her road. She is allowed to widen her road. Her property goes to the fence line, which was now one foot away from the drainfield. If and when she does, and both she and her son agree the road needs to be widened because it is only 10 feet wide and she has a 40 feet wide area, the direction she would go to get a decent road to develop her property would be in the direction of Mr. Dick's property. As she gets closer, it would cause the drainfield to be even closer to the drainage ditch, to the road, and to exposure. This location was deemed unsuitable in 1978 and now they are attempting to put it back in this same location even though it was dangerous. Chairperson Hunter asked where Mrs. Cokelet's property was in relation to the drainfield. Mrs. Cooperstein replied it was one and one feet away from the drainfield at the top of the slope. Chairperson Hunter stated she would be forced to build a vertical wall if she were to widen the MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH COOPERSTEIN APPEAL-NOVEMBER 19,1996 Page 17 of 19 road. Mrs. Cooperstein responded that was correct. Chairperson Hunter wondered if part of Mrs. Cooperstein's concern was the fact that there was more water usage in the building than there was in the original request. Mrs. Cooperstein replied that pursuant to the septic system, there was more water used. The fact that they are requesting 816 gallons versus the original 442 was a reflection of the fact that they have expanded. They have added things like x-ray machines, irrigators, hair salon sinks, washing machines and dryers which were not originally supposed to be in this tiny site. This site was barely approved for a septic system to begin with. The septic system had to be placed on the next-door property. Now, they were coming back and saying that they wanted twice the size of the septic system even though there was no setback or any land hardly and they have already exceeded the minimum size of land. A lot this size should only be allowed 405 gallons per day and he is asking for 816. 11n addition, the minimum land area WAC specifically states that the local health officer may permit the installation of a septic system where the minimum land area requirements are not met only when other-criteria are met. One criteria being that the lot was registered as a legal lot of record created prior to the effective date of this chapter (which was 1974 and it was subdivided in 1975 and developed in 1978). Also, the proposed system has to meet all requirements of these regulations other than minimum land area. It does not. It fails on what appears to be both criteria for exceeding the minimum land area. Basically, this lot was too small for a septic system of 816 gallons and because of its installation, it is developing more and it is being allowed to have more business, more employees, which therefore infringes on their ability to provide parking. If it is found he has a parking easement, it is little or no parking. This increases his need for parking. It is a basic problem of overdevelopment of the property. The septic is one more reflection of this. The septic WACs reflect this. Chairperson Hunter asked if the beauty shop had been in that building since the late 1970s. Mrs. Cooperstein believed it was. The medical center and dental clinic were more recent. Chairperson Hunter wondered if the dirt from the Dick property was on Mrs. Cooperstein's property or the property that was being questioned in court as to being an easement. Mr. Slee had testified to this fact and he was asking Mrs. Cooperstein her opinion. Mrs. Cooperstein submitted the easement document which was labeled Exhibit 11. She commented that.the document stated an easement for reasonable ingress and egress over and across Parcel B, not less than a strip of 30 feet in width. She stated that Mr. Dick does not have'a construction easement. There was a big difference between walking or driving over a property and using it as a construction site. He does not have an easement for digging on their property. Chairperson Hunter noted there were ten minutes left of the hearing. Mrs. Cooperstein noted that general repairs, conforming repairs, and Table 6 Repairs have different definitions for a reason. This was not a standard repair. They did not break the septic system as was stated. They carefully exposed the one on their property and that was when they discovered fluid up to the top. They did not break it by any means. The September water reading, after its installation, was about 2,471 gallons which was 3 times the capacity. The alarm should have been ringing. Her tenants had told her that it was ringing at the beginning of the month and stopped. By mid- September Ms. Lincoln heard they were having a problem with leaking toilets. There were no reports submitted and the leaking toilets were not replaced until the end of September. She wondered what happened to those extra gallons every day for a month. And, why was the alarm MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH COOPERSTEIN APPEAL-NOVEMBER 19,1996 Page 18 of 19 not ringing? They had mentioned that a hose was running, and one day they washed the building, but that was 50,000 extra gallons during that month. If they were going to claim that the water district meter readings did not reflect the septic system, then they should lock the outside faucets so they know that the water district readings equal the septic readings. Mrs. Cooperstein stated they were asking that the Board restrict the size of the system, that the owner design or relocate the parking spaces so they are not eliminating parking, that they maximum the parking on their lot, that the system be monitored properly, and that they submit an as-built which shows what the meters and alarms were set at. Chairperson Hunter stated that there were five minutes left'for,testimony and wondered if the Health Department had rebuttal. Board Member Faughender stated he had trouble in figuring out what remedy Mrs. Cooperstein was seeking. He wondered if the remedy she sought was to restrict the system to the original permit. Mrs. Cooperstein stated that it should be restricted to the original 442 gallons per day. Also, that the real water flows be determined, that it be monitored, that a completed as-built be submitted so there was information on the pump tank, determine what the daily maximums were, and to restrict them to ensure it was a safe system. There were some quirky things happening and perhaps the Health Department should justify what they have allowed to be approved. The Health Department has allowed regulations to go by and have not sought justifications. Chairperson Hunter asked if the Health Department had anything further. Brad Banner, Health Services Director, stated he did not want to make any new arguments, but he did want to correct some errors which were made. The first state regulation was in 1969 not 1974, In 1978 when the first permit was done, it was approved for a septic, but when they went on site they saw the pit installed so the septic was crossed out and they drew what they saw at the inspection. In 1978, the standards were far different than they are today. The sizing requirements are different. These requirements changed in 1982 and went into effect in 1983. At that time they were looking at disposal. Now, disposal and treatment were being addressed. Seepage pits were approved back in 1978, but they are not now. That system would not be approvable now. Land use requirements pertaining to lot sizes are for new subdivisions not for existing lots. They are not applied to any existing lots in the county. There is a difference between guidelines and the WACs which need to be followed. Guidelines are followed as a rule, unless there was technical justification otherwise. Robert Slee stated that they have gone to great extent and great expense to make sure the water flows were as low as they can get them. Out of four buildings he has in Belfair, there are 13 water heaters and 7 have been replaced. The water heater has been tested and they say it was not bad, but the flows during those two high months did not coincide with the meters inside the tanks. They do not know where the water went, but for the last 30 days or so, daily readings have been taken at great expense, and they were all low. The excess flow could have been from 7 toilets. He has been told that one leaking toilet could use up to 2,000 gallons in a day. Mrs. Cooperstein stated that the Health Department should submit WAC numbers when MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH COOPERSTEIN APPEAL-NOVEMBER 19,1996 Page 19 of 19 referencing their comments. Mr. Banner responded that he did have the WAC numbers which he would share with Mrs. Cooperstein. He also commented on how counties were designing systems back in the 1970's. Chairperson Hunter asked for additional comments or questions from the Board. Rules and Regulations of the State Board of Health for On-site Sewage Disposal Systems dated June, 1974, were entered as Exhibit 12. Board Members Faughender/Cady moved/seconded that the appeal hearing be closed. Motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Hunter Stated that the Board would render its decision in three weeks. Board Members Faughender/Cady moved/seconded that the Board of Health meeting be closed at 4:05 p.m. Motion carried unanimously MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH A ' William O. Hunter, Chairperson Mary Jo ad0, _oaid­ Me er M. L. Faughender oard Member Respectfully submitted, �NA/0—) Lorraine Coots