04/08/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

section will be in the township. Mr. Spalding questioned why Parcel B was not given more land from Parcel A. Mr. Rankin believed that if the lot line were closer to the existing home it would cause Parcel A to require a side yard setback variance. He did not believe there was any way to get an 80-foot width for parcel B. Mr. Rymarczyk reviewed that the entire site is in a floodplain and the leach field has to be above the grade of the floodplain. There are unanswered questions, such as where the leach field will be located and how high above the floodplain it will be placed. These issues should be addressed before any motions. Law Department report; Mr. O'Malley indicated that the proposal requires a variance therefore, the Board of Zoning Appeals should address the issue first. Once Board of Zoning Appeals approves or denies the variance request, the proposal would return to Planning Commission. Regarding the leach field that will be servicing the existing home, the city has been lead to believe it will be placed on a separate lot. Mr. Rymarczyk voiced that Mr. O'Malley was correct. Mr. O'Malley indicated that there were development plan issues that still needed to be addressed such as how the existing house would be serviced i.e. a complying sanitary system, its elevations, compliance to the EPA and so forth. The plan needs to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals showing measures of compliance to the code for the existing structure. Mr. Spalding questioned if the applicant had addressed any of the issues Mr. O'Malley referenced with the engineering department. Applicants understanding; Mr. Rankin suggested that he engineering department advised him to speak with the County Board of Health as it relates to septic system issues, that was in October of 2000. At that point he applied to separate the parcels based on adding a second septic system, which as pointed out by Mr. O'Malley the two new septic systems will be placed on respective parcels once they are created. Two different county workers came to the site, Chris Bosworth the district sanitarian for North Olmsted and Marty Buyer the district sanitarian for Olmsted Township. Collectively they submitted a letter stating preliminary approval of the lot split is hereby given with the following conditions; 1). Parcels located within the floodplain of the Rocky River; the soil survey of Cuyahoga County indicates the soils here has moderate permeability this would indicate the installation of an on lot leaching system. The proposed lot split would place the existing household sewage disposal system on the newly formed lot. If the lot split occurs, the systems for the existing house must be placed with an approved system located entirely on the lot belonging to that house with a minimum of 10-feet from all property lines. Mr. Rankin voiced that he understood the County would have final approval of the septic system arrangements before the lot-split can take place. However, he is trying to make sure that if he takes on the expense of ineeting all the pre-qualifications one of the two cities will step up and say the lot split can take place contingent upon meeting the pre- qualifications. He would like to be allowed to go before Board of Zoning Appeals and request that they grant the variance for the width contingent upon the county approving the septic system. He would then submit the plans to the county for approval showing that the individual septic systems meet the States EPA requirements and that they are self-contained on each individual lot. Board members questions; Mr. Spalding questioned if the applicant had received a copy of the City Engineers report. Mr. Rankin suggested he had not received the engineer's report. Mr. Spalding reviewed 4