OfiT~ER td0. ~~~'~6 AF~'PFlOVAI_ OF Vf-1FtIANC:E Of= ON--f:iITE SEWAGE F"At~ :( l_ I'1"`r i~T h~10UN'TA I N I-~Ohr1E LOOS' On this the 1~.,tt-~ day of May 1396, ~_Epon motion made by Commissioner I-~olel-;~:~mF~, seconded by Commissioner OE?tiler, the Co~sr-i: unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0-Q~, to gr-~ant a variance to Mr. Sch~_~Itz of an on site sewa~3e facility at Mt. i-~on;E= Loop, t~to~_E~-~tain i-dome, TE?Y.aS. COMMISSIONERS' COURT AGENDA REt)UEST PLEASE FURNISH ONE ORIGINAL AND FIVE COPIES OF THIS REQUEST AND DOCUMENTS_ TO BE REVIEWED BY THE COURT. V1ADE BY. Cat I'i~~~ ~~ f/ _~~ `1 ~/L 7~> MEETING DATE: S ' ~ 3~~ SUBJECT: (PLEASE BE SPECIFIC) _ OFFICE: TIME PREFERRED: I ,fr- ~_ EXECUTIVE SESSION REQUESTED: (PLEASE STATE REASON) ES'TIlViATED LENGTH OF PRESENTATION: < -~ IF PERSONNEL MATTER -NAME OF EMPLOYEE: NAME OF PERSON ADDRESSING THE COURT: ~-~~ ~ cr~~lY.., ~`~- ~~ Time for submitting this request for Court to assure that the matter is posted in accordance with Title 5, Chapter 551 and 552, Government Code, is as follows: Meeting scheduled for Mondays: THIS REQUEST RECEIVED BY: THIS REQUEST RECEIVED ON: 5:00 P.M. previous Tuesday. All Agenda Requests will be screened by the County Judge's Office to determine if adequate information has been prepared for the Court's formal consideration and action at time of Court Meetings. Your cooperation will be appreciated and contribute towards you request being addressed at the earliest opportunity. See Agenda Request Rules Adopted by Commissioners' Court. I~;NV1ItO1~If1r1T~,N't'~1,1, >\lountairr Fiome, Texas. Lear Mr. Schultz: On March 23, 1996, an inspection by Mark Bowers of this department, at the subject location, revealed that the on-site sewage facility requires upgrading. This inspection revealed that you have 2 septic systems. One on each end of your home: I) by the carport that has an approximately 300 gallon tank and approximately 90 feet of drainfield and is located approximately 30 feet from a water well the drainfield is also placed in soils that are not considered suitable for a conventional system 2) is on the opposite end of the borne and consist of 3 approximate 200 gallon tanks and approximately 75 feet of drainfield and is not 150 feet from the well as code requires and is also placed is soils that are considered not suitable for a conventional system. The combination of all the tanks makes your gallonage meet minimum standards. T'he location of the drainfields to the well without a well Ic~g and the soils the drainfields are in cause me not to pass your s}-stem as it currently' is. The soil profile hole showed clay soil caliche mix with rock and fractured rock. 'T'hese conditions require an alternative system. Alternative systems require a professional engineer or a registered sanitarian t~ design the system to the soil and site conditions present. The design plans must be submitted to this department before a permit to construct can be Issued. A license to operate must be obtained after the system is installed and before the system can be used. An additional fee of $100.00 will be required to cover the repair installation inspections. If a faci}ity using surface irrir~ation is chosen, an affidavit to the public and filling fee of~$9.00 cash will a}so be required. Sincerely, ' ~ ,~~ .,; i' Mark Bowers ce File #96-I 1 1 09/95failm HL~WCD Kerr County, Texas Headwaters Underground Water Conservation District 3 lYlay 1996 Mr. Carroll Schultz P. O.. Box 221 Mountain Home, Texas 78058 Re: Well Set Back Issue 0.896 Acre Tract & 0.123 Acre Tract in the Socorro Forming Company Survey Number 5 Abstract Number 314 in Kerr County, Texas in the Rancho Rio Subdivision, Volume 49, Page 94-A of the Kerr County Deed Records. Dear Mr. Schultz: We have received the water sample analysis of a well reported to be located on the subject tract, a plat of the subject tract and the Headwaters Underground Water Conservation District (HUWCD) Rule number 4 -Well Spacing, and offer the following. 1. Water samples examined in the UGRA laboratory show that the samples are absent of total Coliform group and E. Coli bacteria which clarifies the same as water of satisfactory bacteriological quality. 2. That the age of the well exempts the well from the current HUWCD rules regarding the set-back regulations. In conclusion, from all documentation furnished me at this time, this well does not fall within the current standing rules and is therefore protected under the grandfather provisions. If you need additional information on this matter, please do nor hesitate to call us. Yours truly, (? ~_ J. T, Brown Administrator 213 Rest Water Street, here ille, Texas Phone (210) 896-4110 Fas (210) 257 2621 4/30/96 To: Mr. J. T. Brown, General Manager From: R. C. Wiedenfeld, Sr. Water Quality Specialist Subject: Staff analysis and recommendations for requested documentation by Mr. C. Schultz concerning HUWCD rules interpretation. Background:: 1. Mr. Schultz requested documentation concerning exemptions to separation distances, as addressed by HUWCD rules, between drinking water wells and septic drainfields on 1.019 acres in the Socorro Farming Company Survey No. 5, Abstract No. 314 in Kerr County. This documentation from HUWCD will be presented to the Kerr Co. Commissioners in attempt to receive a waiver of Kerr Co. septic lic- ensing rules. 2. Mr Schultz has submitted a plat of this property for our review that was prepared by Guadalupe Survey Company, dated 9/9/91. Separation distance to nearest property boundary is approx. 45 ft. and the nearest source of potential groundwater pollution is a septic system approx. 40 ft. in an easterly di- rection, as determined from the plat drawings. Analysis: HUWCD Rule 4 -"Well Spacing"; Sections 4.11 addresses well separation to property boundaries and exempts the separation requirement for properties conveyed by deed prior to January 12, 1995. Assuming this plat was recorded near the date of plat preparation by Guadalupe Survey Co., my inter- epretation of this HUWCD rule suggests this property is exempt from separation requirements as provided by this rule. HUWCD Rule 4 - "Well Spacing"; Section 4.12 addresses well separation to "any concentrated source of potential groundwater pollution", and shall be 150 ft. Exemptions provided in this rule include encroachment of "on-site wastewater absorption fields" to "proposed private water wells", provided 2 ft. of P.O. Box 1278 215 West Water Street Kerrville, Texas 78029-1278 (210) 896-5~W5 Fax (210) 257-2621 cemented casing is present and can be documented by driller's well-log in the completed well for each foot of encroachment necessary. As I interpret this rule, its application is limited to 'proposed' wells and not for existing welts on tracts prior to January 12, 1995. In addition, I do not believe HUWCD rules are retro- active to HUWCD's existance. Thanks and comments please; p~ . attachments include: 1. Coliform analysis of water from subject well 2. copy of property plat description ~~ ,~ ~~-' COLIFORM ANALY~ Send NAME Upp~ auadalupe River Authority Laboratory P.O. Box 1278 Kerrville, TX 78029 21x8967178 Z ~ !off St6 -37 ~& ~ report STREET ~V,, 13~.c ~L ~ "" ~~~~ 1 60x/ to: CITY ~~4U~tc-~~ /~~n ~ TEXAS ?~S c~5 b Name of Water System County Point of Collection Collected by Date Time (Public Systems Only) ^ Public ^ Dairy ^ Distribution ^ Raw G3''Individual ^ Bottled ^ Construction ^ Repeat ^ School ^ Special Water System Identification Number TYPE OF SYSTEM SAMPLE IS Ownership or other information: WATER SOURCE ^ River ^ Lake Z,O ~ Well Well Depth ^ Chlorine Residual •n t , ~ ~ . LABORATORY REPORT (Do not write below) (,~(-(JJ,I/lQCil ~}- ~~~ Water of satisfactory bacteriological quality must be free from Coliform organisms 1. Total Coliform Group Absent ^ Repeat samples required~~ ^ Present ^ Unsuitable -See below 2. Fecal Coliform Group ^ Absent ^ Present a. E.Coli Bacteria Analy Co1./104m1 Col.lt00ml ~bsent ^ Present ~ ~ n^ UNSUITABLE FOR ANALYSIS-PLEASE RESUBMIT ^Sample too old. Sample not received within 30 hours of collection ^Date discrepancy or form incomplete (See encircled Item) ^ Leaked in transit ^ Other ^Quantity insufficient for analysis (100 ml. required) ^ Heavy (siltJbacterial growth} present. possibly compromising test results. ^ Excessive Chlorine t_OG I N # - 2471 DATE ~ TIME - 01+~~~~96 TEST # i ABBREV. -COL TEST - CO~ILERT 07:47 Payment v~ Cash: Check: N D e: ROA: RCVD By: \`~ tn. .r_n..l ~ ..J Jig, Nn~uF~ 5 c Go ?~1a6 OAST-lE:P 6.x..,1... i.... ~... •\ APf.:I n.1GT 1~0 '~Ir-! ~'~~ `'I'ti . l.~J~ .... 1' .~ i~ . . ~. . d uv..., a r .u. \\ a ~ `r.~11.C.{~~ rek I / ,. eM srf..., ~ / % ~ / - ......._t4 ....J. // / ~/ i h r a • c r / •' ~ lac" ~ ~ '~ ~ /' a- 3. e. ~ ~ ....ate ll. ».!. `\9. y~ ~jal.a a rv / ~:' . T ..\ `~ ~ ' u v ~?~ ~~ 3zT rw~' ~ ~ °c ~C i o / /~ ; mod' , - •• // j ' -- ~~ - ~/ ~ ,~~p / ~~ ti N,a ~El....d 1wr . d 1- • 1_nr 3 U .ll.• " ~= / ~ F~Ry ~~_-~F.O vI R .. 4`1 ; $ ~ O 123 AG a .,s - _ _ __ l.J f.23 , v,. ~ ""~-P06 1~d,a +~+ll. ~~......,J T f ~. 1 ~.l c ~ a R _- a ~.._ 1 ~ .. a.. oa,.r. L.zve?x ."3d1~'so'~ __-- n~~lc.~ 1 ~i~.~ .l il.^ .. s. C 1 ~.~ ~.-, Li R ~..~oo Row ~':r1 u_. r:. -~~. • xz ea' LG N t'Y' 14' W i tAa~'~ a C ~..,' a CIS-lo.a . 1l, M.~ Luo. T.-f tt • IL N 4Y 33'v./ .. ___.._ {J U 27; bTG .7 t'1 • 276 sY _...~---'.. . - Al V4' ,.% ~.« 1 U ~ ~ ~.~ '- '-' - --------- '-~.._-------------'-_---- `__ --"--- 4.11GNv1SY x.10 ~!l y_ . 6....~ J;} nF~ waive ~Ot-C7 ~~ J R ~"^~ K,.,,y 27 ~ U1 ~ (ti wq ,aes1 , ~J 1`a4V. 3 .L~+ ~ U 2.+' F _ ._ _.- [ate..-... _ .. -- ~ A4.,F N. '+W (,,.1~. .JAM _..~---- - __. l~..q w ~.J ~ E.1 1 -_ ' -..__ ~ _ ~.c i ~. -. T"~='r`~•'~ ` ..~ .,ale t r.".., .. ,,. a cca. ~1~ ..~}- xara~.J.J t,~ val,,.. ~'~e ..la 1, tiharles Digges, a Registered Public Surveyor, hereby certify "NptE" that this plat correctly reprPSents a survey made on the grand undrr imy supervision on SaP~ F..,4~.~ S 19`i{ All fTrovesenLS, easements, discrepancies in harldary lines, ..ICroechnlmts and ptrotrusians, apparent on the site ere shorn hereon. This tract does ro} lie within the 100-year flood plain as deti~ated by the Flood Insurance Rate Nap 1'TO.yb>trT ~~so a "EITLE" f'I fli (1F' r;(IRVIY !~F Il'Il.fl'.>;, "d'~t T" T'-1'1;h !l ~!, t.•' rt.('(?F II;AC1 1!! I~+t `:CU'(Tf?R(1 FARMING Cfnfi'1trJl `,IIR•Jr y UPI. '• r11r (r?r.rr :1t1, 'tp 11J vrrr. ?F'~JIS; C(~+FRI;FO t?F lt;i. f?F I!iT~, t.`.! ~. c>I~rK ~. MNi f'npi' r,, , Charles Digges, R.P.S. I[lU`, R(L?i11N1N, 1RPIfT ;y Eton{v ('! I'1' ~'~`71'n; ''((' '{!1{r{(lri-(~~; r, :tl V(~IIIf4E Qom. F'Rt:f" oil_(t IlF Tf$ (;rr') PI''irar, !+f Vrq,~ IItII+!iV, TfX^ Texas Registration No. A061 GUADA~UPE SURVEY COMPANY 1~T3tVILLE, TEXAS 78028 PFCTE N,-6FR: C 512 r1>'Sd Book ~i102 Di Sk ~ FSle _ Rpf~G4l Rip ORllifil 8Y: ~~ SCALE 1 : Vp F} RE'PROV'ED BY: Cf~ DATE: a 1 ~ I`TI ORDER NO' 23296 E OF ~_gI'PE i ~» t OF ~ ~~~ FACILI'L"I Am S~ ~(3P 1 13, 1996 Y N~aY Vol U ~ Paae 460 ;} ~~ 1 t r 4 }