Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, October 5, 2010,
Item 20
>> 20 is consider and take appropriate action on a request for variances to the current length to width ratio requirements for a mounded septic drain field, the septic tank sizing requirements and the setback requirements to a drainage easement for the septic system at 529 brandon way. And that's in austin, texas.
>> that's correct.
>> okay.
>> stacy sheffield, anna bolin for t.n.r. The engineer representing the property owners. Basically is what happened in 2006 a system was designed, permitted, installed and licensed for a seven-bedroom home with less than 7,000 square feet. During a recent real estate inspection for pending home sale, it was found that actually a 7800 square foot home was built. The property owners have room on their property to put a system that complies with current regulations, but due to rule changes and whatnot, it -- the current system just doesn't meet requirements. It will be costly for the owners to do this. They are asking for relief basically based on cost. T.n.r. Does not recommend this variance because their health and safety rules and costs should not be an issue. Also it has the effect of taking the rules and throwing them out the window because basically the test is the test of time.
>> i move based on t.n.r.'s recommendation we deny this variance.
>> i think a motion is out of order. We need to hear the owner --
>> can i give a little bit of technical. Steve winsell and i'm representing the owner on this. I did the original design and i'm a licensed sanitary and professional engineer. And i wanted to bring out a couple of things on here. Typically once a house size is given, that is what it gets permitted for. Somehow, i don't know how, but a larger home was put in for whatever reason. Tcad has it at a larger size than was permitted. The drain field is sized to handle the increased flow. It is -- i put 20% extra on it, i always do so it covers the flow. The septic tanks are 60 to 80 on shore. The system in order to replace it like she was saying, we're going to have to basically wipe out the entire system in order to meet the current criteria. What i'd like to do is propose that -- and it's been inspected by two independent inspectors because it's been told a second time which no one caught this the fact there was a larger home. So each inspector has found the system in good working order, no signs of failure, everything is fine on it. So i'd like to impose that as one of the things to please think about. What i'd like to also offer, if a variance can't be granted, is it possible, which i've done in city of austin and lcra, to perhaps let the owner file an affidavit that says they understand that the limits of the flow there are 480 gallons a day, and the 540, 60 gallons more is what the new one would be, so for 60 gallons more, we're putting in 25, 35,000-dollar new system. The affidavit what it does is a couple things. One is it lets the new owners know what the limits are on their septic system many. I propose most septic system owners don't know what their limited design is. It various. What we're talking about is twice the flow. There's a media and game room and 200 square foot storage area that goes to the outside. So there's other uses in these larger homes that kind of don't equate. The current criteria does let you go up to a seven-bedroom home. There's only five bedrooms in there. The other thing too on is ways the most appliances are going, they are going to reduce water use. So the tendency and trend is going to be lower than that. The hard criteria from the state are guidelines in the sense that they don't have a ream of data that says for this size home this is the exact flow. If we file an affidavit, then every future homeowner will know what that limit is. And it also inspires them to look for ways to maintain their system because a system even if it is designed to the criteria is only as good as it's used or abused by the owners. It doesn't guarantee anybody a certain life of anything or protection to the public health or the environment. So the affidavit would do several things, and i think it would be well within their realistic limits that they would not exceed that. And would not see any kind of environment dangers at all. And if you think about it, if it was a little bit shorter, if it was 800 square feet less or 600, however you want to look on this, shorter on the house, the system would be sitting there just fine. Sewage would be going into that mound. That is the best looking mound in travis county and i've done almost 780 systems over the 25 years. So it's a great looking system and i hate to see us scrap it all. You have to get an aerobic system which uses electricity which i don't like and sometimes squirts chlorine into our soil which i don't like either and i please implore you to see if there is another option that provides equal protection to the public health and environment. And i propose an affidavit.
>> let me --
>> i was about to ask for staff's response to that recommendation.
>> i think the affidavit has the same effect of taking the roles and sort of throwing -- rules and sort of throwing them out the window. It opens us up to negotiating flows on every single on site wastewater system. Whereas right now we're holding the rules as they are.
>> would you say the state rules are a floor for what's inappropriate septic system? You can exceed the state standard.
>> yes, you can exceed it.
>> would you say that the floor that the state has set is a high burden?
>> it's an average. It's based on average home size and average use of particular homes. Steve is absolutely right, it may be that this home is never utilize to do where they ever reach the kind of flow that it has to be designed for under the rules.
>> questions and comments?
>> if i understand what you are saying, via the affidavit, that then -- i mean how would we enforce whether or not the -- the homeowner is complying with the flow?
>> the same way you do for any design that's on the boards today. I mean all the septic systems out there designed assume a design flow. There is no monitoring of that. That's why the state standards, in my opinion, they are a guideline for what you should be sizing it for. The county doesn't have the staff or nobody is monitoring anybody on these design flows. The next time you all are going to see it is when sewage surfaces.
>> that's our concern.
>> yes, if the size of the house is such that it was indeed used with its maximum capabilities, perhaps it would not meet the minimum requirements we are talking about by law.
>> uh-huh.
>> i think the affidavit may have a part. This is part of a real estate transaction and what they are seeking from the county is to modify the license to operate. And the affidavit is mitigation. Perhaps that could be mitigation to a future home buyer. All we are saying is we don't think it's appropriate to modify the license to operate to reflect something that's not actually there.
>> what's the state's response to granting variances such as this?
>> the state's guidelines are basically if there's not enough size on the -- not enough room on the property to put an appropriately size system that a variance may be appropriate.
>> but there is enough room here.
>> pardon?
>> but there is enough room to put an appropriately sized --
>> there is in this case, yes.
>> so you design a system for a 7,000-foot home. Somebody went and built one 7800. So how did that happen?
>> it happens quite a bit. Well, there's discrepancies between what the permitted designs are that we turn in here and what the appraisal district shows on their records too. It happens. Sometimes there's categories they break every 1500 square foot. We may get one right at the limit. Tcad comes in and has four more square feet. It throws them another category. I'm not propose to do change the license to operate. I'd like to leave that if there's a way to leave it and just file the affidavit and let them know that yeah, the licensed operator has guaranteed the system is for 480. That's why i didn't want to break into the variance part if possible.
>> if we don't provide a variance, the current homeowners will still be able to operate the system and use it as on-site sewage, correct?
>> currently they are operating in violation of their license to operate because of the excessive square foot inch. Under an enforcement case it's not likely that we would ever enforce on that unless and until the system fails.
>> and so there's no prohibition on the sale of this property to someone else. They will just have knowledge their septic is operating outside its parameters, correct?
>> that's correct.
>> so it my be a headache for the homeowner in the sale because they will have to explain the deficiencies of the system, but isn't that what we want from a public policy standpoint?
>> that's what i would like. I would like to get more education in it.
>> but it's not in compliance with the state regulations with regard to the size and the flow.
>> yeah.
>> any final words today, mr. Winsell?
>> no, sir, that's it. I hate to see this all go to waste, to tell you the truth. It's just a great system. I mean i'm just -- i'm just saying i've been so proud of that mound. It's a good system. And i hate to see for 60 gallons that we have to trash it and start all over, that's all.
>> there are other options for these property owners. Like steve said, we're not sure how accurate tcad was in their square footage analysis. It may be somebody can go in and measure really well and show that it is actually compliant with the license. It may also be that the property owner could do a remodel or something to take some living space and make it not living space. So there are options other than remove the entire system.
>> commissioner?
>> i think that we need to set the bar. There's no easy black and white on these things, but we've got the rule and when there are other options, i think we should go by what the rule is and i make the motion that we support t.n.r.'s recommendation on this. And not approve this variance at this time. Unless if there is some other information that comes up later, bring it back to us.
>> motion is to deny the request for variance. Or variances.
>> i second also with the knowledge that we are likely to see a lot more of this as we continue to urbanize. We are likely to see many more septic tanks that are not meeting the state standards, and i think that we need to have a enforceable bright line standard.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, October 5, 2010 2:27 PM
