Laserfiche WebLink
The applicant has made the following statements. <br /> 1. The area of the lot is -170,000 square feet. <br /> 2. The proposed septic system to serve the facility would not comply with HAR <br /> Section 11-62-31.1(B)(1) because the IWS would serve more than two (2) <br /> dwelling units. The estimated flow into the system would be 900 gallons per day. <br /> <br /> 3. The existing large capacity cesspool(s) needed to be closed and replace with a <br /> new treatment individual wastewater system by April 5, 2005 in order to comply <br /> with federal requirements. <br /> <br /> 4. The current State requirement of a wastewater treatment plant would significantly <br /> add to the construction cost as well as require a much greater ongoing <br /> maintenance cost. <br /> 5. The facility has been in operation for 20 years in this location using the existing <br /> cesspool. The installation of a wastewater treatment plant in lieu of a septic <br /> system will not be possible due to space restrictions and may force the owner to <br /> abandon the business operation. <br /> <br /> 6. The applicant believes this variance request is in the public interest because the <br /> LCC will be upgraded to an IWS (septic system). The IWS plans will be <br /> designed by an engineer and will be submitted to DOH for review and approval. <br /> The new IW S will provide a better wastewater treatment system compazed to the <br /> existing business and day off employees. <br /> <br /> 7. Prevent loss ofjobs. The LCC serving my facility has been in operation for 20 <br /> years. The current State requirements of a wastewater treatment plant would <br /> significantly add to the construction cost, as well as require a much greater <br /> ongoing maintenance cost. The owner may be forced to close my existing <br /> business and lay off Iny employees. <br /> 8. The variance is requested for the maximum of five (5) years. <br /> The following agencies submitted the following comments: <br /> 1. The Clean Water Branch submitted the following comment: <br /> Recommend to grant this variance application. <br /> 2. The Safe Drinking Water Branch submitted the following comments: <br /> A. The site is located above the Underground Injection Control (UIC) line. <br /> There are no program-recorded drinking water wells within 1/4 mile of the <br /> facility. According to our records, the facility does not have a UIC <br /> permit; <br /> B. The information in the application is conflicting. First, the applicant <br /> mentions that jobs may be lost if the variance is not granted. However, <br /> Yualani Tertare Varianw Appliraion \l'\\' 192, Dockal No. OS-V\V\H'-26. Pindmgs of Pact and Conclusions of Law, Page 2 <br /> <br />