Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies variance to allow septic system for new home at 3407 North Vine
Summary
Council denied a request by homeowner Jason Elliott to install an on‑site sewage system where municipal sanitary sewer is available. Staff recommended denial citing city code and public‑health concerns; Elliott said he was misled by a prior conversation with a city engineer and described cost and maintenance hardships.
Victoria City Council voted July 7 to deny a variance request that would have allowed a new home at 3407 North Vine Street to use an on‑site septic system instead of connecting to municipal sanitary sewer.
City planner Greg Rodriguez told the council staff had reviewed the applicant’s site evaluation and found municipal sanitary sewer available and adjacent to the property; city code (municipal code section 10.1.1.15 as cited in staff materials) prohibits private sewage disposal systems where public sanitary sewer facilities are available. Staff said the property line was about 42 feet from the sewer main and that a private service connection was feasible.
Applicant Jason Elliott told the council his 58‑acre parcel had been annexed decades earlier and that he selected a build site farther from Vine Street after earlier conversations with city engineers led him to believe a septic option could be used. Elliott described higher costs and agricultural maintenance concerns if forced to run a long sewer service line: “The septic system I’ve quoted will cost about $12,000. I received quotes that reflect 4 times as much for what the city has proposed,” he said, and added that tying in would require long runs, cleanouts and potential disruption to planned vineyard and cattle operations.
Permit staff (Julie) and other city staff said the contractor who sought the building permit had been told septic systems are not allowed when sewer service is available and that a plumbing plan to connect to the sewer was submitted before the permit issued. Staff also said similar variance requests in the neighborhood have been denied and that they found no qualifying hardship. Council members referenced precedent and public‑health concerns; one member noted only a very small number of variances have been approved in recent years.
Council first considered a motion to approve the variance, which failed. A subsequent motion to deny the variance passed on a roll call vote. The denial means the property must connect to municipal sanitary sewer as required by city code.
Council did not direct staff to pursue enforcement actions beyond the standard permitting and connection requirements; the decision resolves the single‑property variance request but does not change city code or precedent.
Next steps: the applicant may pursue standard connection options or seek other administrative remedies outside this council vote; council did not indicate intent to amend the code.
