Letter: Recent buyer supportive of new septic ordinance

To the editor:

I must concur with the recent letter written by Mr. Kennard with regards to the upcoming vote on the septic inspection (March 8 paper).

As a recent purchaser of a home in Brown County, we were within days of closing on one property. It had passed the home inspection by my inspection company, but they advised that they did not check the septic system other than stating that it drained. Once they checked the system, it was discovered that the septic had failed and that the cost of replacement was close to $30,000.

If not for the fact that I went above and beyond what was required by the lender for the property, I would have had to replace the septic system after purchase.

Failure to do so would have adversely the watershed that is adjacent to the property.

I have noted that the property is still listed as for sale and that the listing does not mention the failed septic system.

Some may question the cost of the inspection; however, when you amortize that cost over the cost of the loan, it is simply pennies a day.

This ordinance is one that helps both the seller and the buyer.

Brown County has, due to its terrain, challenges for the septic systems. This would allow every one to see ahead of time what those challenges are for a specific property.

Mr. Kennard and his staff should be commended for instituting this ordinance.

Mark C. Medlyn, Helmsburg Road

Send letters to newsroom@bcdemocrat.com by noon Thursday before the date of intended publication (noon Wednesday on holiday weeks).

Letters are the opinions of the writer.

Letters must be signed by the author and include the writer’s town of residence and a contact number in case of questions. Only one letter every two weeks, per writer, to allow for diversity of voices in the opinions section.

Please be considerate of sharing space with other letter-writers and keep your comments concise and to the point.

Avoid name-calling, accusations of criminal activity and second- and third-hand statements of “fact.”