Summit County Board of Health denies Hatches’ appeal to install septic on 0.13‑acre lot

The Summit County Board of Health voted unanimously to deny an appeal from property owners Dale and Joni Hatch seeking permission to install an on‑site wastewater system on a 0.13‑acre parcel known as K‑4‑A.

Ryan Stackham, attorney for the Summit County Health Department, told the board that because a public water system is not available at the site, state and county rules require a minimum one‑acre lot for a septic permit when a private well is needed. "Minimum of 1 acre," Stackham said when asked to summarize the controlling requirement.

The Hatches told the board they want to put a small seasonal cabin or dwelling on the lot and argued that neighboring parcels in the historic Woodland subdivision already contain septic systems. "We'd just like to make that property usable as it was intended when it was subdivided," Dale Hatch said as he described plans for a small structure or seasonal camping use.

Why the decision matters

County staff and board members said the one‑acre threshold traces to a third‑party study adopted into Utah Administrative Code R317 and was incorporated into Summit County’s health code (Section 1‑3‑9). Nathan Brooks, Summit County environmental health director, said the county applies rules current at the time of application and that the lot does not meet the size table used to determine permit eligibility.

Board counsel and staff explained there are two separate avenues the Hatches may pursue: 1) apply for a variance under the state administrative rule (R317‑4‑12 et seq.), which requires a licensed engineer’s certified report addressing hydrogeologic conditions, alternatives considered and an operation/maintenance plan followed by public notice and hearing; or 2) pursue seasonal, non‑structural uses that may rely on hauled water and different approvals. Dave Thomas, the board’s attorney, outlined the variance application elements the county would expect before considering an exception.

Technical and regulatory details

Staff said a perk (percolation) test was performed in October 2022 and found sandy soils with no groundwater encountered in a 10‑foot observation hole; staff also noted that certain alternative systems, including some membrane bioreactor (MBR) or advanced treatment designs, can reduce drain‑field size by about 30 percent relative to a conventional system but do not alter the lot‑size requirement. Nathan Brooks confirmed that alternative systems receive a reduction for drain‑field sizing but that the code’s acreage table controls whether a permit may be issued.

Board discussion and vote

Members asked whether the board itself could grant a lot‑size variance during the appeal. Legal counsel advised that the appeal hearing does not substitute for the formal variance process: a variance requires a separate application with an engineer's report, public notice and departmental review. With that guidance, Dorothy Adams moved to deny the Hatches’ appeal "as presented" on the ground that the parcel does not meet the one‑acre requirement; Heidi Gordon seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.

What comes next

Board and staff repeatedly told the Hatches that the case is not permanently closed: they may submit a formal variance application under R317 that includes the required engineering documentation and would trigger public notice and a separate review by the health department (and possible appeal rights thereafter). Staff also discussed interim options, such as seasonal camp‑trailer use with hauled water, but cautioned that hauling water typically does not satisfy building‑permit requirements for a permanent structure.

The board adjourned after the vote.