Water contamination, noise, traffic, and environmental destruction are major concerns raised by county residents in response to a proposal to build a landfill near the intersection of routes 301 and 656.
Several dozen residents, largely from the Mattaponi and Reedy Church districts—the areas that would primarily be affected by the landfill—turned out at the Board of Supervisors’ Dec. 2 and Dec. 9 meetings to voice their opposition.
A proposed amendment to the county’s Solid Waste Management Plan related to the project was up for public hearing at the Dec. 2 meeting. The opinions offered by citizens on Dec. 9 were part of the public comment portion of the meeting.
The landfill, which is being proposed by Caroline Recycling, a limited liability company registered in Manassas in April, would operate on 684 acres on the western side of Route 301, near its intersection with Dry Bridge Road. It would accept construction, demolition, debris, and limited commercial waste and would also include a recycling center. A later phase of the project would erect an industrial park on an adjacent 461 acres.
Paul Farrell, a principal of the company, told the Progress in November that the “limited commercial waste” accepted by the facility would consist of nonhazardous materials, but no household or industrial waste.
Andrea Wortzel, an attorney with Troutman Sanders representing Caroline Recycling, stated that the project would offer the county increased revenue, jobs, and more convenient disposal options for construction and demolition debris that would drive down construction costs.
Under the current SWMP, the only waste management facilities allowed in Caroline are those operated by the county. Until the 1990s, Caroline ran a landfill of its own, but stricter federal and state environmental regulations forced it to shut down the site and begin shipping its waste elsewhere.
Although the facility being proposed on Route 301 would not accept municipal waste, the wording of the SWMP is such that an amendment is required before Caroline Recycling can apply for the necessary Virginia Department of Environmental Quality permits and zoning changes.
Interim director of public utilities Joey Schiebel at the Dec. 2 meeting clarified that approval of the amendment to the SWMP was not approval of the proposal itself.
“This is but one step of a lengthy process,” he said.
The overriding tone of the public hearing, however, was confusion, with many residents posing questions directly to the supervisors about the location of the project, what studies would need to be done prior to approval, and how the facility would affect the surrounding area in terms of noise, traffic, smells, and property values.
The location in particular sparked extensive discussion, with William Gordon of the Mattaponi district reminding the Board of the failed 1993–1994 proposal by W. C. Spratt to construct a municipal waste facility in Caroline.
The Spratt landfill was initially proposed for a 512-acre site off of Coleman’s Mill Road about a mile and a half from Interstate 95 and three-quarters of a mile from Route 207. After the Board of Supervisors denied the proposal 3–2 in July 1993, Spratt filed a second application for a special exception permit to erect the facility on 1,150 acres at Routes 301 and 656, encompassing the site in question today.
Ultimately, the Board of Supervisors terminated its negotiations with Spratt, and the proposal was withdrawn.
Port Royal Supervisor Calvin Taylor, who was on the Board at the time of the Spratt proposal, emphasized that the 1993–1994 project, which was intended to accept municipal waste, was “a totally different type of landfill” from that currently being proposed by Caroline Recycling.
Nevertheless, some residents thought the distinction didn’t matter.
“It’s different trash, but it’s trash,” said Gordon. “And it’s not all Caroline’s trash.”
Nancy Carson of the Mattaponi district agreed: “We have enough trash of our own,” she said. “We are not that desperate for money and jobs that we have to take trash from another state or other areas and bring it into our county. I’m sure we can find or create something better than another landfill.”
Several residents expressed fears about the effect the operation might have on their wells and the groundwater.
“I would like studies done on this about what the effect would be with all of this waste going into the groundwater,” Jay Johnson of Bowling Green district told the Board.
Reedy Church Supervisor Reggie Underwood emphasized that given confusion about the project, “it’s important … that we get all the facts first.”
“I had some of the same concerns regarding this landfill,” he said. “After going to Richmond and meeting with DEQ, who regulate the water and the facility, spending four hours with them, trying to understand what this facility would do, I came away with a different perspective.”
The Board opted to delay a decision on the SWMP amendment and to continue discussion at the Dec. 9 meeting. At that time, 11 residents, some of them repeats from the Dec. 2 public hearing, spoke out again, focusing on the risks that increased truck traffic on Routes 301 and 656 would pose to citizens, the smell, and the effect that such a facility would have on property values and the area’s rural way of life.
“I’m concerned as to whether this is a choice that has already been made to have a landfill in the county … or if there’s still a decision to be made as to whether it’s going to be done,” Felicia Smithers of Reedy Church district told the Board. “Because sometimes there’s a lot of discussion—quote ‘discussion’—around an issue, but the actual decision has already been made.”
Chairman Floyd Thomas staunchly denied that a decision had been made: “We have not made a commitment to have a landfill. We have not made a commitment on any situation here,” he told the auditorium.
“This is a process,” he reminded residents, noting that if the SWMP text amendment were approved, the actual application would then still have to go through review by both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
“We are going to take as much information as we can,” said Thomas. “We are going to have as many meetings as we can. And we’re going to make sure all the citizens are informed and at least understand what’s going on so that they can help us make this decision.”
The Board will vote on the text amendment in the new year. A meeting will also be held by Caroline Recycling on Dec. 16 at 6:30 p.m. at the Reedy Church Ruritan building for residents interested in further information about the proposal.
By Sarah Vogelsong CP Reporter The Board of Supervisors put another
By Sarah Vogelsong CP Reporter Abundant Life Academy got a two-week
By Sarah Vogelsong CP Reporter The Board of Supervisors put another
By Sarah Vogelsong CP Reporter Abundant Life Academy got a two-week
By Daniel Sherrier Editor King George didn’t make it easy, but
By Scott Richards CP Correspondent The Cardiac Cavaliers, aka the Caroline
By Greg Glassner CP Correspondent Caroline County’s only Hispanic church celebrated
By Daniel Sherrier Editor Rachael Matern remembers several great teachers from