Agenda - 06-16-2008-3 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT 1 9Z Sites with Less than 25 Acres in Size Unless Transportation Access, Existing 2 Buffers, and Preliminary Transfer Station Layout Demonstrates the Adequacy of a Smaller 3 Site 4 Definition: 25-acre single parcel or combination of parcels 6 Commissioner Gordon made reference to Attachment 2-a and the action: "Recommend 7 minimum 25-acre site unless co-located with other municipal facilities or operations which 8 provide access and/or buffers to reduce this size requirement." She asked how that was 9 addressed. Ed Schuffler said that the currently proposed wording was included in response to 10 comments from the Board about possibly having a smaller site with co-location. 11 12 Criteria Under Consideration: 13 14 10 Sites with "Protected Watershed Overlay District" Exempting Therein Those 15 Non-Residential Land Use Activity Nodes (i.e., Commercial/Industrial, Commercial, 16 Industrial, and Economic Development) SLUE 1981-19941 (Figure 9) 17 Definition: Exclude residential areas with protected watershed overlay districts, and 18 include non-residential activity nodes with Protected Watershed Overlay District. 19 20 Ed Schuffler pointed out Composite 9, which includes Figures 1-9. 21 Commissioner Gordon said to revise Figure 3b and bring it back so that the Board can 22 see what it would looklike without the three-mile street buffers as shown in Figure 3a. Ed 23 Schuffler said he would to that. 24 Commissioner Gordon asked clarifying questions about the process, which were 25 answered by Ed Schuffler. 26 27 3. Receive Public Comment on Preliminary Exclusionary Criteria and Professional 28 Recommendations 29 Chair Jacobs pointed out that there will be other criteria that follow this that will address 30 additional issues involving technical criteria and community criteria. 31 32 Bob Nutter said that he is a taxpayer in Orange County, he is interested in projects that 33 cost money to Orange County, and this project will be costly. He suggested transferring waste 34 by rail versus roads, since the cost of oil is drastically changing. He said that this project will 35 hopefully be for the long term and he would like the Board to take into consideration the cost of 36 fuel of transferring waste. 37 Tish Galu is a resident of Orange County. She made reference to the exclusionary criteria 38 and asked how the 2025 mean center population was being applied here. Craig Benedict said 39 that, .in order to determine the centroid of waste generation in the County, they took all census 40 tracts in the County, they took the population projections for each sets of tracts, and ran the 41 data through a GIS system to determine the shortest distance to take all trips to one focal point 42 in the County. The most efficient place, based on this calculation, is the centroid of waste 43 generation. The 12-mile distance was based on the centroid. The source.of the data was the 44 Metropolitan Planning Organization projections. 45 Stan Cheren made reference to page 11, #9 and asked how small a space could be used 46 for, a transfer site. Bob Sallach said that, according to comments that came from the public 47 sessions, as they look at buffers, they need to look at buffer width as well as what they want to 48 buffer. It is hard to project at this point a minimum size.