Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Division Bremer 1400 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Waverly planning commission opposes 3-lot split at 1400 Bremer Road amid failed perk test and septic concerns
Summary
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Waverly on Oct. 2 recommended against forwarding a proposed three-lot subdivision of 1400 Bremer Road to the City Council with a favorable recommendation, citing a failed percolation test on the center lot and concerns about alternative septic-system maintenance and environmental effects.
Get email alerts on the Land Division Bremer 1400 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Waverly on Oct. 2 recommended against forwarding a proposed three-lot subdivision of 1400 Bremer Road to the City Council with a favorable recommendation, citing a failed percolation test on the center lot and concerns about alternative septic-system maintenance and environmental effects.
The commission debated a staff presentation that said all three proposed lots would connect to city water but sewer is more than 500 feet away so on-site septic would be required. Paige, city staff, noted that the middle lot failed the percolation test and so "they would have to be an alternative system." She also said one parcel contains a 1,500-square-foot steel accessory building, and that Waverly's accessory-structure rules allow only up to 1,000 square feet on sub-acre lots, meaning a variance would be requested if the plat were approved as drawn.
Why it matters: Commissioners and the applicant agreed the two outer lots passed percolation testing but the center lot hit shallow limestone. Commissioners raised repeated concerns that mechanical, alternative septic systems require ongoing maintenance contracts and monitoring. One commissioner warned: "Who's going to be the enforcement mechanism here? County Health Department?" and said the city should avoid creating long-term maintenance obligations for future owners.
Applicant Dean Schilling, who described working with staff on the split, said two outer lots passed and the middle lot did not. He said alternative systems could treat effluent to a high degree and that routing effluent along an existing reinforced concrete pipe would discharge to the same creek outlet. Schilling said the three-lot configuration was proposed for affordability and to better match lot sizes in the nearby Fairholme addition.
Commissioners pressed technical and policy points: several said the middle lot's shallow soils and bedrock (karst-like conditions) make system failures difficult to detect and exacerbate long-term environmental risk. Staff noted the nearest sanitary sewer is about 1,300 feet west at Copper Terrace. Commissioners suggested a two-lot split could avoid the variances and reduce the need for alternative systems.
Action: A motion to recommend approval of the three-lot plat (as drafted, which would have approved the requested variances) was moved and seconded. In a roll-call vote Commissioners Pete Fuller, Stephanie (Turner/recorded as 'Stephanie' on the roll), Dave Heuser, Kate Payne, Cathy Olsen and John Meyer each voted No. The commission's motion failed; the record states the item will be forwarded to City Council with an adverse recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Details and constraints: The staff memo and discussion established that parcels must be at least 1 acre to avoid the lot-size variance for septic access when sewer is not available; the proposed lots are just shy of 1 acre so variances were requested. The existing accessory structure measuring 1,500 square feet exceeds the 1,000-square-foot allowance for detached accessory structures on sub-acre lots, which also formed part of the variance request. Commissioners noted alternative septic systems are mechanical and often require vendor maintenance agreements and a reliable enforcement mechanism if owners fail to keep contracts current.
What's next: The item will be transmitted to the City Council with the Planning and Zoning Commission's adverse recommendation; council consideration and any final permit or variance approvals will be separate decisions.

