Minutes 09-12-2016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

11 Commissioner Jacobs: So staff has worked out what is the leased area and whether or not there's any materials discarded there that need to be removed. Brian Quinlan: There aren't any. Because the environmental assessment that was done— they went in and looked at the entire area. Those barrels and such were outside of the leased area. Patrick Mallet: That's part of the furnished parcel that is a current commercial operation, so once you get into the area that's proposed —the 27 acres of the 52-acre site to the rear—that's pretty well cleared, and doesn't contain any known debris, or any items for cleaning up. Obviously if they're going to utilize it, it's in their interest to have it ready to do the solar development. Commissioner Jacobs: So there are ponds and streams that are not part of this parcel, and there are discarded barrels of something on that part—with which this Applicant has no concerns under the law—what about the owner of the property, are they going be required to remove any of those barrels? Is anybody testing to see whether those barrels are polluting? As long —or is that irrelevant to our— I know it's irrelevant to this Applicant— but is that irrelevant to the County? Patrick Mallett: Well, it may or may not be. It depends on where the barrels are and what may or may not be located within them. The 52-acre parcel is part of a Special Use Permit with specific commitments to the utilization of a portion of that site and we also have, obviously, our Unified Development Ordinance that governs stream buffers, and other items if there were other elements that needed to be dealt with that made them complaint with our ordinance, then we would certainly do so. That's our obligation, regardless of this request. Commissioner Jacobs: Ok, so we see photographs that may indicate that there are materials on the rest of the property that could be hazardous. Is anybody going to follow up? Patrick Mallett: This went through the state clearing house system, and there were no known contaminants. There was an environmental assessment that was conducted on the property, which I believe evaluated the entire 52-acre site. The EPA is part of that clearinghouse. There are some facilities that are located within two miles that are on the other side of US 70, that I believe are brown field sites that have monitoring wells associated with them. But they're not part of this property. They're on the other side of the highway, and not contiguous. Chair McKee: Let's ask the Attorney to weigh in on whether this on whether the barrels on an adjacent property— or on this property, on an adjacent piece, are relevant to this discussion. James Bryan: It would depend on the permit. I think that this permit is applying for just the leased area, not the entire parcel. If that's the case, then you would treat them separately. In fact, there's a recent case, within the last year or two that made it explicitly clear that jurisdiction cannot withhold a permit on one property because of non-compliance in another one. So we may become aware of this through this process—and that's good to illicit that information, and that's all fine— but the ultimately force on this permit is irrelevant. Chair McKee: Ok. Thank you.