Cook County News Herald

Property owners find proposed septic ordinance odoriferous




About 50 community members gathered at the courthouse Wednesday, November 18, 2009 for a Cook County Planning Commission public hearing on a proposed countywide septic system ordinance.

According to Planning & Zoning Director Tim Nelson, the state is requiring each county to adopt a subsurface sewage treatment system ordinance by February 4, 2010 or at least be working on one. ThePlanning Commission appointed a committee about a year ago to create a draft ordinance that would comply with minimum state requirements.

On the committee were representatives from the county board, the Soil & Water Conservation District, the Cook County Water Advisory Committee, the Coalition of Lakes Association, the Planning Commission, and the community at large.

The committee’s draft was published on the county’s website and in the Cook
County News-Herald.
Most concerns focused on: 1) a requirement that all septics be inspected every three years, even if they are used infrequently, 2) a statement that all dwellings must have a wastewater treatment system, 3) a requirement that all systems be inspected whenever property changes hands, even within a family, and 4) a requirement that all lots created after January 23, 1996 have two acceptable soil treatment and dispersal areas.

Nelson said the state allows systems to simply be evaluated every three years and pumped only as necessary. The committee wanted to err on the side of caution by requiring pumping every three years. Many community members are asking that each system’s needs be evaluated individually.

The definition of wastewater pertaining to individual septic systems is not outlined by the state, Nelson said, and needs to be clarified along with standards for outhouses and other alternatives. The intent is to treat human waste appropriately on all properties so it doesn’t contaminate the groundwater or neighboring properties.

State-level rules have not become more stringent, Nelson said. In fact, certain privy requirements have been “relaxed a bit.”

If the draft ordinance were adopted as it was written, the Planning & Zoning Department would have difficulty handling the increased inspections that would be required, Nelson said, and currently, his office has no way of even knowing when properties change hands. Even if his department found out that a property was changing hands with an uninspected or faulty septic system, state law would prohibit any process that would impede the recording of a deed.

Numerous community members politely stated their concerns. Dick Crosby, a Devil’s Track Lake homeowner since 1991, said three years ago he had to spend $7,000 to fix a system that had previously been approved by the county. It worked fine but didn’t meet current standards. Property owners should not have to make changes to things that were previously approved, he said.

An East End property owner envisioned the possibility of having to pay for inspections more frequently than every three years, such as if a system was pumped one year, expanded the next, and sold the year after that.

Bill Haas of Rosebush pointed out that the proposed ordinance applies words like “prosecution” and “misdemeanor” to ordinance infractions, violations that would be considered separate offenses for each day of noncompliance. In addition, the draft says nothing about whether inspectors have the right to be on people’s properties. He was concerned about “septic Nazis.”

All ordinances contain this type of language, Nelson said, although he has never seen it enforced criminally. “Nobody wants to be a septic Nazi,” he said. County employees are instructed not to step foot on a property if the owners don’t want them to.

Why would transfer of property apply to families? Pat Hart asked. Nelson responded by saying the committee wanted to increase the number of septics to be inspected.

“We want to set up an estate so it’s not a lot of hassle for our children,” Nelda Westerlind of Good Harbor Hill said. She and her husband want to be able to divide their 160 acres among their four children, but they might never build houses on the land. If the land were not developed, money would be spent needlessly on identifying two septic sites per parcel. If they get too cautious, she said, landowners will suffer.

Septic site identification relates to a 1996 state rule regarding subdivisions. The county would not consider their splitting a 160 into four 40s a subdivision, Nelson said, and this could be clarified in the ordinance.

Chet Lindskog of County Road 7 echoed Westerlind’s concern. He wants to give his grandson some of the property behind his house, but to do so, he would need to identify a second septic site on his property and two on his grandson’s. Some lots could instead be sold as unbuildable or have alternative systems on them, he said.

Dallas Smith said his parents’ home went on the market for $240,000 after they died. Now it is down to $175,000 without a buyer in sight. Replacing an outdated septic system with the sale of a home that has been lowered in value because of the economy would be very difficult, he said.

Real estate broker Virginia Palmer concurred. On behalf of realtors, she said, “We’re adamantly opposed to the point of sale inspection.” They would force people into foreclosure and bring property values down, she said.

Putting a septic system in a remote area could be expensive, said Dewey Pihlman of Seagull River. He bought his land 30 years ago, planning to sell half when he retired and live on what he made from the sale. Zoning in his area changed from five-acre minimums to 10-acre minimums during that time, so he cannot subdivide as much as he once could have. Requiring septic systems could make profitable sales even harder.

Pihlman was optimistic, however. “I’m reasonably assured a lot of this stuff is going to get worked out.”

Thecounty should not impose rules that are stricter than the state, said Grand Marais resident Brad Thompson.

“I hope you take into consideration the terrain in Cook County,” said Phillis Anderson of Maple Hill. She asked if cabin owners would have to blast to put in “proper” outhouses and then have barges come and pump them out.

Thecounty is aware that terrain and lifestyles vary greatly throughout the county, Nelson responded. They are trying to balance protecting resources with accommodating citizen choices.

Compostable toilets don’t require pumping, septic inspector LeRoy Halberg said, although waste must be buried. G & G Septic does have a barge, however, he said, and they pump in remote areas.

After public comments were heard, the Planning Commission discussed its next step. The county is not staffed to keep up with the inspections that would be required by the proposed ordinance, Halberg said. The septic inspection failure rate over the last 10-15 years has been 30%, Nelson said.

The septic committee determined that a blanket ordinance pertaining to all systems would least impact the department, Nelson said. A more flexible ordinance could be adopted, but it might require ongoing oversight by an environmental consulting group.

John Barton recommended that they look seriously at people’s concerns and not use a one-size-fits-all approach simply because it’s easiest.

DC Olsen recommended using education to encourage proper septic maintenance, such as sending all septic owners an owner’s manual.

David Tuttle, on the septic committee, said that he didn’t agree with everything the committee proposed, but “pumping is very important to making your system a last a long time.” Not maintaining a septic system is like buying a $30,000 car and never changing the oil, he said.

Lloyd Speck recommended bucking the state’s ordinance requirement. “People should be able to take the responsibility for themselves,” he said.

A few counties have
bucked the state, Nelson said. If the county did, the state wouldn’t do much except “talk sternly to us.”

“I’d call their bluff,” Speck said.

Much of this ordinance follows standards set back in 1979, Halberg said.

We shouldn’t be here, then! Speck responded.

The Planning Commission directed Planning & Zoning staff to make changes to the draft based on concerns expressed by the public. They will discuss the new draft in January.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.