On Aug. 20, 2015, you approved Special Exception Petition No. 1739, allowing a Waste Transfer Station to be built at the corner of Porter Road and Palmer Blvd. The development concept plan was binding by stipulation.
I would note that the County Planner did not explain what a waste transfer station does. No specifications were offered as to how many tons of C & D debris would be transferred daily.
Without such specifications, certain facts would be impossible to ascertain. For example, the waste tonnage is the hinge data used to calculate the size of the site, as well as the number and size of trucks that would utilize the facility. Please consult this EPA document about siting Waste Transfer Stations.
On p. 21-22, the tonnage is used as the basis of a formula for site size. On p. 16, the document discusses the need for internal road configurations able to handle trailers from 50 to 70 feet in length.
"These vehicles need wide roadways with gradual slopes and curves to maneuver efficiently and safely," the EPA notes (p. 16).
It is concerning to me that a basic question as to what tonnage the facility is designed for was never addressed at your hearing.
Mr. Bo Medred repeatedly stated there would be no noise, no processing of any kind at this Waste Transfer site. He speaks of a nice wall and other cosmetic issues. What is lacking is the kind of hard factual information that would enable any authority to ascertain whether Mr. Medred's claims - e.g., that there would be no stockpiles, no traffic issues, etc., that spotters would detect illegal materials -- can seriously be relied upon.
Now Mr. Medred is back to enlarge this entire operation. He wishes to put his Waste Transfer Station AND a Waste Processing Plant on 16 acres.
You will recall that on Oct. 20th, 2016, you ok'd a text amendment that changed an ordinance to allow waste processing in certain areas on 15 acres, rather than 35. This drastic reduction was clearly driven by Mr. Medred and his client's desire to put a Waste Processing center on this parcel at the Celery Fields.
I will note that you and the BCC approved Ord. 2016-082 which under certain conditions can allow waste processing on 15 acres. It does not, however, state that waste processing AND waste transfer are allowed on that acreage.
If anything, the 4.6-acre waste transfer parcel was too small for its avowed purpose. Now, aside from all the other issues raised by the degrading prospect of a waste processing facility at Apex and Palmer, there is the double intensification of ILW, the double use of the same 16 acres for two distinct operations. You are not being invited to bend the law, but to distort it beyond all recognition.
The proposal you will hear seems neither to be workable, nor to fit the letter of the law you voted to change last October - let alone its spirit.
This is a matter of high concern. Please base your decision onon objective evidence, unimpeachable testimony and solid data. If you do not feel you have all of that, simply postpone until such time as clear, certain evidence enables you to make a fair and just judgment.