Permit - 1264234 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

11. 12. the necessary security and meet the labor demands for this size of an operation it appears that the farm operation requires the occupants of the proposed dwelling to reside on the property. It a/so appears that all dwellings on the property will be occupied by residents who will perform a significant amount of farm work throughout the year. The proposed mobile home is located on the northern portion of the subject property. Provided it is placed no more than 100 feet from the north property line the mobile home will be outside of the identified 100 year Floodplain of Mill Creek. The fish ponds are proposed to be placed within the iden- tified floodplain area on the property. Development of this kind in a floodplain requires approval of a Floodplain Development permit to ensure compliance with the Flood Protection Standards of Section 178.060 of the Marion County Zoning Ordinance. The proposed ponds will consist of two types, an in-ground pond and an above-ground concrete tank affixed to a founda- tion. Due to the nature of the proposal most of the pro- visions of Section 178.060 do not apply to fish ponds. The in-ground ponds, due to on-site disposal of the excavation material, has the same impact as fill. The floodplain regulations allow filling within the floodplain but not within the floodway. Since none of the property is within the identified floodway the proposed in-ground tank would comply with the standards of 178.060. The above ground concrete tanks, however, are regulated by the provisions of 178.060 (c) (non-residential development). Compliance with these standards require that the concrete ponds have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy and they shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure. These standards must be certified by a Registered Professional Engineer. As an alternative to the above certification requirements the applicant could locate the concrete ponds within 100 feet of the north property line on a portion of the property line outside of the addressed the proposal will comply with the provisions of the Floodplain Overlay zone, In reviewing this case staff found that the applicants (Ernest and Helen Watson), up until June SO, 1986, owned two contiguous tax lots. In the EFU zone the provisions of Section 136.130 consol/dated the contiguous properties into one parcel. On the above date the applicants placed tax lot $639?-569 in Helen Watson's sole ownership without the required County partitioning approval, Prior to being