08/02/07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

conventional septic system would be allowed when the neighbor has a mound system. He wondered if this would morph into a mound system or would he need to come in for a second variance if it needed a mound system. City Engineer Jankowski stated in order for the plat to be approved one of their conditions will be that he has documentation from a certified soil scientist that he has a primary and secondary system and where they are located on the property. When he comes to get a building permit he will need to have the primary system inspected by the City Building Department. Board Member Nixt explained to the residents the items the Board needs to discuss in order to decide whether they will approve this or not. Motion by Board Member Nixt, seconded by Board Member Cleveland, to close the public hearing. Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson VanScoy, Board Members Nixt, Cleveland, Brauer, Hunt, and Trites Rolle. Voting No: None. Absent: Levine. The public hearing closed at 8:05 p.m. Board Business Chairperson Van Scoy called the Board of Adjustment meeting back to order at 8:05 p.m. Board Member Cleveland stated she was confused about the neighbor's house location on a 2.5 acre lot and knowing that each of the lots would require a septic system. She noted normally they would have the houses more centrally located on the property to accommodate the house next to them and not right up against the lot line. Associate Planner Da]nes stated the Sideyard setback is ten feet along with septic system setback that is also ten feet from the property line. She noted the building setback for all rural areas is ten feet. Chairperson Van Scoy asked if this was considered a rural area. Associate Planner Da]nes stated when the neighboring house was built; it met all of the requirements at that time of a rural area. Board Member Nixt stated when an application for an on-site septic system is submitted as part of the application process, the permit has to show the location of drain fields and wells on adjoining properties along with contour rings that give distances to show the placement of the well and septic going in complies with State law. It does give existing landowners the benefit to site their well and drain field that comply so subsequent property owners have to site their well or drain field in such a way that it does not encroach. What they are seeing on the survey is the location of the neighbor's well which appears to be outside of the proposed primary drainfield location and otherwise meets the requirements of the State of Minnesota. Board of Adjustment/August 2,2007 Page 7 of 12