CORRESPONDENCE_1971-1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

E AL: Mr. Mich3 spoke in rebuttal and the following ~" points: this is no violation o anyone's con ctu l rights; the opposition referred to statements by the County Administrator the County Administrator' s letter of July 24, 1972, directed to the Board of Supervisors, expressed concern over the solid waste disposal program; the County Administrator indicates a pressing problem which needs to be solved within the County. This proposal is not the same concept as a cit p; this proposal is concerned with the recovery of material; it will be operating totally within the confines of a closed building and there will be no flying debris. The test borings were on the perimter of the property as the property was beinglirrigated at the time the tests were made; they were unable to establish the 100-year flood .frequency to this project because the Corps -of nineers did not use those terms in 1965. Fire protection would e greatly enhanced by the two wells on the property. Rodents do not become a problem if the sanitary land fill operation is conducted in the correct manner; 160 acres will last for 30 years for a sanitary land fill, without resource recovery operation; regarding the wells in the area, the water is deep enough that there is no danger of contamination. All soil not to be used will be spread, compacted on subject property The method of operation will allow people to bring their material o the building (which will be a pole building that could be ex- panded as required) , the material will be processed (never stored in the building) , and tran6farred to the Lovelace site. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED In answer to a question, Mr. Michael stated that they are not inter ested in operating a facility for the general public. DISCUSSION AND ]FINDINGS : commissioners McComb, Boyden, Barrows, ' W'aidhofer and Barrows spoke on this issue and in their comments t the following findings were made: E2; A r val: - There is a real necessity for this type of operation. - The remarks by the League of Women Voters and the Ecology Coalition were appreciated. - In favor of the concept as outlined, but not in this location. _ Concept is faultless. - The building proposed is quite small and could be placed almost anywhere; it would be well located in the. City, in an industrial area; and that the materials which are not recovered could be hauled away to a sanitary land fill site. We need this project; it must start somewhere; if it means we should sacrifice 160 acres, then we should do that; we musty make a start to reclaim this material. For Denial: - . This is not the proper location for the proposed use. - All of the arable land should not be developed. - If the farmers in the area are correct in the amount of sugar beets which can be grown on this land, then the land should 'remain in agriculture . - Agriculture is needed for food production. This is agricultural land. MOTION: ove , seconded (Barrows-Donald) and carried by a majority roll call--------------------------------------------o eo deny the permit. Comm. Boyden Voted no. 4----------------