Greensburg — Kevin and Carol Whipple's request for a permanent special exception to enable them to have three individual septic systems rather than a private on-site sanitary sewage treatment plant required by county ordinances was denied on Wednesday.

The couple, whose property is located on the north side of the intersection of County Roads 350 West and 600 North in Adams Township, had returned to the Board of Zoning Appeals after requesting that their request be tabled at the Aug. 4 meeting.

"We went around a bit with some questions about the nature of the soil and the way the system would be installed," Kevin Whipple said when asked to refresh the memory of the board.

In order to clear up any confusion, the Whipples brought licensed septic installer Bob Hardebeck and soil scientist John Bowen to the Sept. 1 meeting.

Board member Roger Krzyzanowski asked Hardebeck to describe a septic system and what it does for the benefit of the board and audience. Hardebeck explained that the system involves a tank for the collection of solids with liquid effluent flowing into an absorption field to be safely released over time. Perimeter and curtain drains are used to keep excess water from overloading the system, he continued.

Board president Albert Armand asked if the drains are required for all systems, and Hardebeck explained that there are very few systems that won't require one type of drain or the other. Bowen stated the soil on the Whipples' property is not unusual for soil throughout the state of Indiana.

Krzyzanowski then discussed the contents of effluent, which carries bacteria and disease that can be devastating to the environment as well as public health.

"We're trying to minimize the effect of these things," Krzyzanowski said.

He noted that septic systems fail, allowing effluent to flow to unanticipated destinations. This is why in areas with a higher density of housing, the county requires a private on-site sanitary sewage treatment plant for major subdivisions, which are defined as any division of three or more tracts from the parent tract. He noted that public systems are treated and monitored while private septic systems are not subject to the same level of supervision. The bacteria in a septic system can live on indefinitely, making it a concern long into the future, he noted.

"That's one of the biggest concerns I have as we start loading up the soil," he said. "We're expecting Mother Nature to take care of everything."

Hardebeck noted that there is an alternative system known as the Presby system that manages waste in a manner that keeps water away so that bad bacteria will die even in a high-water season. In addition, these systems can be repaired if they fail, making their longevity greater than a traditional septic system. Still, Krzyzanowski noted that an exception needs to have a clear cause.

"I'll be blunt about this,Ó" Krzyzanowski said, "but if we approve something like this where we upset the rules, it opens us up to all kinds of things."

"What we're asking," Armand said, "is why should Mr. Whipple as the developer of a major subdivision be exempt from the requirements of other major subdivisions?"

Kevin Whipple then asked the board what is classified as a private wastewater treatment plant.

"What do you have in mind?" Armand asked.

Whipple noted that he has looked into mechanical systems and was unsure if that was the meaning of the term. Armand said there are a variety of systems available and that he had not researched to find out what they are.

Whipple asked who is in charge of approving a private wastewater treatment plant, and Armand explained that the Department of Natural Resources must approve it.

"The state seems to be leaning toward mechanical," Whipple said, "which are mostly designed for 10 or more homes at a cost of $100,000."

Bowen then spoke up to note that there was no evidence of harsh topography on the site.

"According to state codes, sewage could be treated safely on lots that size and with that soil," he said. "A design has been made by the health department and approved. A system could be designed to effectively treat effluent there."

"For how long?" Armand asked.

"The important part of this is that the soil scientist does his job, the system is designed correctly and it is installed properly," he said. "It could last 20 or 30 years. Even if you have a treatment plant on site, pumps fail and things break down. The same kind of things could happen with the plant."

Krzyzanowski reasserted that the board attempts to minimize any negative consequences, and Armand noted that a treatment plant would be monitored while a septic system would not. Bowen noted that an agreement could be created to check the system on a given timeframe and pump it on a routine basis to extend the life expectancy of the system.

Armand said that if a septic system lasts 20 years and a house may last much longer, there is the potential for an "unlimited number of failures over the life of the house."

Board member Shannon Konkle asked about the possibility of other landowners wanting to do the same thing and whether it would have a negative impact on the soil. Bowen said that so long as owners care for their systems, there would be no problem.

"With that logic," he said, "you should ban all septic systems in the county and have a county-wide sewer system."

He noted that there are likely good reasons to classify three divisions as a major subdivisions, but there are many areas with more than three houses near one another that were approved in the past where the septic systems continue functioning properly.

"We have to have a reason to go against the ordinance," Konkle said.

"We see so many septic failures in this county," board member Darlene Tobias added.

Bowen noted that many of the current failures are systems constructed in the 1970's when the average person used less water. Adding more water to the system can overload it and cause a failure, he explained.

"It is your responsibility to show why you should not be held to the same standard as other developers," Armand reminded Whipple.

Whipple asked one final question before the board voted. He inquired why it is different to build three smaller systems than one large one for a six-bedroom home.

"I agree with looking to the future and trying to plan for the long term," he said, "but if we have three systems the Board of Health has determined will work, I don't understand why it needs to be different. I could understand for someone putting in 10 houses with roadways to recoup the cost, but for a family, it is prohibitive to build one (a private treatment plant)."

Krzyzanowski explained that with a single house, there is one owner to work with and one system to fail. With more houses, the situation becomes more complicated.

Krzyzanowski moved to vote on the petition, and Tobias seconded the motion. Armand, Konkle, Krzyzanowski and Tobias voted no. Linda McGinn voted yes. The motion failed.