Agenda - 06-05-2012 - 6a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

A4W. 3 11 From: Kristen Marbais [mailto:krisnine @hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 10:51 PM To: Kevin Lindley Subject: 6.20 Public Sewer Connection amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance I'm writing in regards to the proposed amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance. Requiring new buildings and properties with failed septic systems to use the sewer system is wasteful in that: a. The sewer system uses resources and energy that a septic tank does not. Where a septic tank could serve the same purpose, the sewer system would be wasting those resources. b. By requiring its use when not necessary, you will reach the system's capacity sooner than you would otherwise, resulting in the need for additional resources. As part of our county government, you should be doing what is best for the county. Requiring waste and taking money out of people's pockets is not in the best interest of the county. You should be anxious to reduce waste and help our resources go as far as possible, as well as maintaining rather than straining the residents' level of income. If anything, you should be encouraging the use of and educating on the proper maintenance of septic tanks wherever possible. Enabling your residents to be as self- sufficient as possible should always be a priority. There was a public meeting held at Efland- Cheeks to inform us of what was going on and to answer questions. The locations of connections and the costs if we signed up at a later date were thoroughly discussed at the meeting. When the topic of septic tanks came up, one of the speakers tried to dissuade us from replacing old ones and to use the sewer system by talking about the costs involved. After weighing all of our options, my husband and I opted not to sign up, deciding instead to replace our septic tank if there is ever a need. In the long run, the cost of using the sewer system will prove much higher than replacing a septic tank would be. Our property is on the opposite side of the road from the new sewage line, and because we did not sign up to connect to the system, there should not have been any digging in our yard. However, one day, there were men digging a huge trench in the yard. After calling to find out what was going on, we were told by Kevin Lindley that the stubouts were already in the plans and bid on by the contractor. At the public meeting, we were not told this. At the meeting, we were told that a stubout would not be put in unless we signed up to connect. Was it assumed that we would all sign up? Kevin also said it's "better for the integrity of the system to install a stubout when the main line is being put in." This is perfectly reasonable and acceptable. However, it is not acceptable that we weren't notified of this change in advance, especially considering that we received numerous letters to sign up. Your recent letter about the amendment states that we will not be forced to abandon our functioning septic systems, but how do we know that isn't the next change you have in mind? It seems that you are only willing to inform us of your plans when it is convenient or required. If there were a legitimate reason for this amendment, it would have been discussed up front and would have been included in the letter. You need to keep in mind the people who are affected by these decisions. Don't forget that you are supposed to be doing what is best for us. This proposed amendment is not what is best for our wellbeing or for the future of our community. Thank you, Kristen Marbais