BOA agenda 111212 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT -24- .231 Chad Abbott: Related to a bunch of the issues with the acreage here, the number of residential .232 units that could be placed on this property, being around 15 which is a conservative number .233 based on the zoning. .234 .235 Michael Harvey: Seven or six. .236 .237 Chad Abbott: Seven or six based on the zoning. Okay, seven or six houses at four bedrooms .238 each would be required to have a septic field or treatment for 500 gallons per house which .239 would yield a system requirement larger than what we have proposed here. If this were .240 developed as residential, you could easily surpass the impervious areas as well. We have a .241 total of 70,000 square feet if you take everything into account including that road. If you were to .242 take that road and extend it to the back of the property, you are almost doubling or tripling the .243 length of that road plus seven houses at 2 or 3,000 square feet, you could easily reach the .244 impervious limit of 15 %. .245 .246 Bob Hornik: Did you want to address the water quality? .247 .248 Chad Abbott: Back to the septic issue. Septic fields are sized using safety factors which are .249 implemented, not by me but chosen by the State, by the county health department. This septic .250 system has been appropriately sized and marked in field as deemed appropriate. I know there .251 are concerns about the pond below and the ground contamination. I have already explained the .252 treatment of the dog waste so if this were developed with residential houses, which are allowed .253 without a special use permit, if one of those house septic systems failed, they don't have a .254 meter on them so all of these issues can be compared easily to a residential development, and .255 the water washing over the drain field, the water is not per say washing over the drain field as if .256 you can look at the topography. The water is kind of concentrated coming towards our parking .257 area. It won't wash across our drain field. .258 .259 Bob Hornik: Chad, describe the topography of the land, where are the high spots and low spots .260 and the cuts where drainage goes. .261 .262 Chad Abbott: The topography slopes from the pond this way and gathers here and crosses the .263 pipe to the other side of the road. The larger drainage area coming from the park area is from .264 here. See the dashed line, it will come through here where we will have a pipe and it will .265 continue down which bypasses our septic system. It is not going across our septic system. 1 .266 know Mr. Kirschner alluded to washing across the drain field. There are no issues with water .267 flowing across the drain field. That is where all the water.-then there is a ditch along this road .268 that brings the water down through the property and comes here as well so there are many .269 places and sources that contribute to any increased levels. .270 .271 Bob Hornik: The applicants this evening have talked about building a berm generally running .272 east to west along the northern property line which will not eliminate noise moving northward. It .273 will be one more barrier or buffering device that we have proposed at this point to put along that 274 line so that will address it to some extent some of the concerns. .275 276 Larry Wright: Very early on with Mr. Harvey's opening remarks, he said that the permit would 277 be one of the applicant's, Mr. and Mrs. Griffin are to the north and should they no longer live 278 there, the whole business would cease. 279 280 Michael Harvey: There is a note on the site plan, sheet C1 that reads as follows: "The 150 foot 281 required setback for section 565.A213 is not warranted at this property line as the owners are on 282 the application. The owners and other parties on the application are aware that if the SUP is 283 tied to the property and it is binding only to the parties involved. Should the contiguous change OC Board of Adjustment - 5/14/2012 Page 24 of 41