Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Septic Ordinance Update topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pine County board reviews proposed changes to subsurface-sewage rules for lot splits
Summary
County administrators presented proposed ordinance language to ease lot‑split requirements when soils cannot meet the 12‑inch rule, suggesting an administrative‑variance pathway and debating a uniform 1.5‑acre ‘‘buildable area’’ threshold before returning the draft to the zoning board and scheduling a public hearing.
County administrators presented proposed revisions to Pine County’s subsurface sewage‑treatment ordinance to reduce a recurring obstacle to lot splits in areas lacking the 12 inches of suitable soil required for a Type 1 septic system.
Kelly Schroeder, the county administrator, explained the practical problem: Minnesota Rule "70 8100 sub part 3 f," as read during the meeting, requires that new lots created after Jan. 23, 1996, must demonstrate two locations suitable for a Type 1 system (a mound or in‑ground drain field with at least 12 inches of good soil). Schroeder contrasted that with Type 3 systems, which require more imported sand and different limiting conditions, and said sellers and septic designers often perform multiple borings to locate a theoretical Type 1 site even though builders commonly install Type 3 systems in practice.
Schroeder said the zoning board proposed administrative variance language (developed in August) allowing, in certain unplatted minor subdivisions, approval without the strict 12‑inch showing if the lot meets either a 60% buildable area threshold for lots between 2.5 and 4.99 acres or at least 1 acre of buildable land for lots larger than 5 acres. Commissioners discussed the rationale and practical consequences, with several board members advocating a consistent threshold across lot sizes and some suggesting a blanket 1.5‑acre buildable requirement to simplify administration.
Commissioners debated related safeguards: requiring wetland delineations on smaller lots, whether staff should perform site visits or rely solely on licensed septic designers' soil‑boring logs, and what safeguards should remain to avoid broadly easing standards. Schroeder noted there are existing dispute‑resolution and variance procedures in the current ordinance for cases where designers and county staff disagree.
The board did not adopt ordinance language at the meeting. Commissioners signaled general comfort with recommending a uniform threshold (many favoring 1.5 acres) and directed Schroeder and county staff to take feedback back to the zoning board; the county will hold a public hearing after the zoning board processes the language.
Next steps: staff will refine proposed ordinance language, confirm wetland‑delineation triggers and site‑visit process and return to the board via the zoning board public‑hearing schedule.
