Issue 4: Private Servicing

01 Sep 2022
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

Alternatives for Consideration

  1. Shared Private Servicing (Status Quo)
  2. Separate Private Servicing

Do you agree with the preliminary recommendation?

The shared servicing policy is prohibitive in achieving flexible alternatives for agricultural producers to develop FLRs. From a planning policy and zoning regulation perspective, a shared private service would not be required as-of-right, but this does not preclude an owner from implementing a shared system on their property.

Reference Discussion Paper pages 23-26(External link)

Share Issue 4: Private Servicing on Facebook Share Issue 4: Private Servicing on Twitter Share Issue 4: Private Servicing on Linkedin Email Issue 4: Private Servicing link
  • Gresod almost 3 years ago
    i agree we should have the ability to have a shared servicing system, the size should be based on the accumulated capacity of the structures
  • PD almost 3 years ago
    Construction of new purpose built Septic system, as opposed to tying in, and upgrading the existing, leaves less opportunity for negative environmental impact. Both shared and private servicing should be permitted, flexibility for the best alternative. 
  • Celissa almost 3 years ago
    I agree with private servicing.
  • Duane almost 3 years ago
    Yes, absolutely private servicing makes sense.

    There are rural subdivisions of 40-60 homes on 20-30 acres of land all with sperate services. Farms should be able to increase the number of services to what makes logical sense.  
  • Snb1252 almost 3 years ago
    I feel private servicing should be permitted.   Private servicing would allow for septic systems to be placed in logical locations in relation to the FLR and reduce environmental risks trying to route wastewater to a shared service.  In the event that the existing service is engineered to handle the additional flow, then a shared service makes a lot of sense.  Private servicing will provide operational flexibility. 
  • MoonAngel almost 3 years ago
    Separate systems should be allowed, as long as the appropriate conditions are included, as outlined in the discussion paper.

    Is there a typo in Table 2? The number says 35001, but shouldn’t it be 3500?
  • Jan V almost 3 years ago
    It should be whatever works best.  Also should be able to accommodate  a situation where farmer lives at a different site.