Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994/08/18 - Board of Health 'MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH APPEAL HEARING AUGUST 18, 1994 An Appeal Hearing of the Board of Health was called to order at 1:00 p.m. by Dr. Mark E. Trucksess, Health Officer. Those in attendance: Dr. Trucksess, Health Officer Pam Denton, Environmental Health Specialist John Denison, Environmental Health Specialist Thomas and Lucille Kennison, Appellants Linda Wright, daughter of Appellants KENNISON APPEAL - LAKELAND 5, LOT 53 Dr. Trucksess explained the appeal hearing's procedural steps. He noted that if the Appellants were not satisfied with his findings, they would have the right to appeal to the Board of Health. John Denison, Sanitarian, reported on the history of the Kennison's application for a septic and drainage system on Lot 53 at Lakeland Village 5. Mr. Denison had become involved when the Lakeland Village Architect, Mr. Graham, had contacted him regarding water on the front end of the lot. At that time,Mr. Denison had reviewed the records, discussed the matter with the Health Services Director, and met with the architect on site. Mr. Graham's concerns appeared to be valid; the lot had sloping roads from both the left and right sides with a low spot where drainage and rain would tunnel. Mr. Denison contacted Mr. Tahja, the installer, to convey these concerns so that corrections could be attempted. Mr. Tahja met with Mr. Graham and explained his plan to rectify the situation. This plan was sent to the Health Department for approval. Mr. Graham had notified the Kennisons that they had permission to cover the system, when in actuality that authority resided with the Health Department. A later notation in the file stated that the system had been installed and that the drain field was under water. Health Department staff believed the system was not working and sent a letter to the Kennisons stating that in order for them to receive a building permit they would need a new drainage system or would need to modify the existing one to work properly. In contrast, another notation in the file indicated that the drain field was not under water, however, pockets of water were present as a result of depressions. Because of mud, the installer had not completed grading and covering. In a recent on-site visit by Health Department staff, it was concluded that there were sufficient uncertainties remaining that could be addressed by winter observations. Therefore, staff was requiring winter observations before building was permitted on site to ensure that the integrity of the system was not compromised. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH J APPEAL HEARING - AUGUST 18, 1994 PAGE 2 of 4 Dr. Trucksess questioned the water that was found on the property in 1993. Mr. Denison stated he believed it was the result of run-off from the roads. Dr. Trucksess wondered if this might be the responsibility of the developer to correct. Mr.. Denison remarked that it could be, however, it was the Lakeland Village Architect Committee who had prevailed upon the Health Department to review and mitigate the problem. Dr. Trucksess asked if a drainage system was installed to correct the water problem. Mr. Kennison answered that a drainage pipe had been placed from the front of the lot, down the side, to an open discharge into the lake. He noted that no water had been seen in the drain. Dr. Trucksess asked if the discharge was in accordance with the shorelines regulations. Mr. Denison commented that to his knowledge it had not been reviewed by shorelines, and that other drains at Lakeland Village flow into the lake with official approval from the development. Mrs. Kennison commented that no water from the drain had been discharged into the lake this year. She stated that the catch basin was deep, and what water there was, did not get up high enough to the pipe to drain to the lake. Dr. Trucksess asked how long the drain was. Mr. Kennison answered that it was 120 to 130 feet long. He displayed a diagram which showed that _ the pipe went down the length of the lot. Dr. Trucksess asked to be shown on the diagram where the standing water had been located. Mr. Denison pointed to where the water had been, noting that the area was now up to grade and was no longer a low area. Dr. Trucksess asked if the drainage system was working. Dr. Denison replied that he believed it was and that when he inspected it, the water had been below the over- flow. However, at some time a small amount did go through because there was evidence of water being trapped in the pipe. Mr. Kennison showed the diagram to Dr. Trucksess stating that he had never seen water come off the hill at any time. The only water he ever saw on the lot was from rain fall. Ms. Wright commented that she had seen no evidence of erosion either. Mrs. Kennison remarked that their driveway did not even require a culvert from the county, but they did install one. Mrs. Kennison stated that they are protesting the fact that the letter denying them the right to start building was sent after the site was finished. She commented that there was no longer a low area and that a collection system had been installed. Ms. Wright stated that permission had been given to cover the septic tank during an inspection when the dip in the land was present. Mr. Denison stated that it was dry at that time, during the month of September. Dr. Trucksess asked if these issues had come up later. Mr. Denison replied that the issues of potential, compromise came up after the fact. Mr. Kennison stated that if the rain had occurred a week earlier or later, no one would have seen the water. Imo! i _ MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH APPEAL HEARING - AUGUST 18, 1994 PAGE 3 of 4 Dr. Trucksess stated his concern was that if the Kennisons built on the lot and at some later time the system failed, would it contaminate the lake. He asked if there was any reserve. Mr. Denison showed on the diagram there were reserve areas. He noted that the fill material used in the low area was good quality fill, and he would not have concerns with the reserve. Mrs. Kennison displayed photographs of the site. Mr. Denison noted that the lot was essentially level now. Mrs. Kennison stated that perhaps another few loads would be delivered for landscaping. Dr. Trucksess asked if the only remaining requirement missing was the winter observation. Mr. Denison replied that the system was functioning as intended and that the only item left would be possible compromise during the winter. ,Mr. Kennison stated that their lot was higher than the lot to the right and level with the lot to the left. He stated that if there was that much concern, it should have been addressed during the septic tank installation, however, the letter from the Health Department to stop was received after they had obtained permission to cover. Dr. Trucksess commented he wanted to ensure that a problem in the future did not occur. He noted that this would be in the best interest of the Kennisons considering the possible sale of their home some time in the future. Review of the photographs was made. The necessity of having winter observations before construction began was discussed. Dr. Trucksess asked about other potential reserve areas being available if the system failed.,Mr. Denison stated that the drain field could be reestablished with pre-treatment, sand filter or bio devices. He stated that a credible replacement could appropriately serve the safety of the lake. Mrs. Kennison asked if pumping the septic tank more frequently would be an alternative. Mr. Denison replied that statistics have shown that pumping more often was not as desirable as a pre- treatment. He noted that this could be easily added in the form of a filter insert, and recommended that a filter be.installed. Ms.. Denton agreed that a filter insert would be better than pumping more frequently. Mr. Kennison explained how the letter denying their system had been sent to the wrong address. He stated that he had been involved building four other homes and this site appears to be no different. He stated he could not understand what the difference was. Dr. Trucksess questioned whether or not winter observation would tell them anything more. Mr. Denison stated that a monitor placed near the drain field would tell whether water was present. Dr. Trucksess wondered if winter monitoring could be done after the construction of the house. Mr. Denison replied that it could be done but the reason it had been requested was to guard against construction. Dr. Trucksess asked if the problem of surface water occurred, could it be repaired. Mr. Denison replied that there was a potential of repair if the system was not doing 1 its job. Dr. Trucksess asked if the Kennisons would put up withstanding water on their lot. The MASON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH APPEAL HEARING. - AUGUST 18, 1994 PAGE 4 of 4 Kennisons replied that they would not. Mr. Kennison stated that the most water he saw on the site was in one hole in the low spot due to rain fall. Mr. Denison stated that this problem had been eliminated with the replacement of some clay soil from the neighboring property with good fill material. Dr. Trucksess noted that the standing water had never been observed over the drainfield and Mr. Denison concurred. Dr. Trucksess stated that there was not enough proof that the system was a hazard to public health or that it was not going to work. He commented that the pictures provided by the Kennisons were very helpful in showing the soil on the site which looked very gravelly. Mr. Denison agreed that it was ideal fill which looked like the material used in mound systems. He stated that if there was a problem it would not be from that and that the filled area could be used for a repair if it was ever needed. Dr. Trucksess granted.the appeal made by Mr. and Mrs. Kennison. Appeal hearing adjourned at 2 p.m. Dr. Mark E. Trucksess, Health Officer Respectfully Submitted, Lorraine Coots