Board denies landfill amendment

By Sarah Vogelsong

CP Reporter

 

A surprise decision by the Board of Supervisors to not approve any changes to the county’s Solid Waste Management Plan has left a controversial proposal for a commercial landfill dead in the water.

County residents have hotly contested a proposal by Caroline Recycling, LLC, to establish a landfill on 684 acres at the intersection of Route 301 and Route 656 since it first emerged in November.

However, because neither the county’s Solid Waste Management Plan nor its zoning ordinance currently permit any private company to operate a waste management facility within the county, Caroline Recycling has not been able to file a formal application to develop the site.

On Dec. 2, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on a proposed amendment to the SWMP. Several dozen residents turned out to voice their opposition to any changes that would open the door to an application from Caroline Recycling. At that time, the Board deferred a decision on the matter to its Jan. 27 meeting to allow Reggie Underwood, the representative for the Reedy Church district, where the landfill would be located, to hold several constituent meetings on the matter.

Although the landfill was not on the published agenda for last night’s Board of Supervisors meeting, 10 residents spoke during the public comment period to urge the supervisors to say no to the project.

After the public hearing closed, newly elected chairman Calvin Taylor informed those in attendance that “no decision has been made on the landfill.”

“Some people feel that the Board has already made up its mind, and I can assure you that no decision has been made,” he said. “The Board has not made up its mind.”

Nevertheless, as the meeting drew to a close, Taylor asked Underwood whether he “would like to send a message to (Caroline Recycling) that this is just not something that the Board feels they could entertain at this time.”

Underwood initially seemed to balk: “My concern is that I like the processes to run their course, and whether the six of us agree or disagree, folks have a right to come out and present and be heard,” he said. “I think that’s what makes us a great nation, is the fact that the voice of the people carries our vote, but people still have the right to agree and disagree.”

“If we know now that the majority of this Board has decided that (denial) is the direction that we want to go, then I don’t know that we need this on the agenda (for Jan. 27),” Taylor argued. “We could vote that amendment tonight.”

Madison Supervisor Wayne Acors agreed. “I really haven’t gone into a public hearing with my mind solidly made up in the 28 years I’ve been on this board,” he said. “But I’m going into this public hearing with my mind made up. It is not an issue I’m going to support.”

County attorney Benjamin Emerson advised the Board that if it so wished, it could vote to place the SWMP on the evening’s agenda and then take a vote on whether or not to approve the proposed SWMP as amended.

Western Caroline Supervisor Jeff Black put forth the first motion, and Acors the second. Both motions carried unanimously.

The Board’s decision to not approve the amended SWMP means that the amendments to the county zoning ordinance that would permit a privately owned commercial landfill to operate in Caroline will also fail, barring Caroline Recycling from submitting any application for its project to the county.

Paul Farrell, a principal of Caroline Recycling, later expressed his dissatisfaction with the process of gathering citizen feedback.

“What we were looking for is a cross-section of the entire county, not just 20 people in Reedy Creek,” he said. “Twenty people doesn’t necessarily represent the viewpoint of 22,000 people.” (Caroline County had approximately 28,500 people in 2010, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.)

Farrell also stated his intent to look into the legality of the Board’s decision to add the SWMP to the agenda at the last moment.

Taylor explained this decision as stemming from the degree and intensity of citizen opposition to the project and said that he considered that the sooner the Board let citizens and the potential applicant know of their decision, the better.

“We want to alleviate as much anxiety as possible,” he said.

Nevertheless, he also defended the process of public consideration.

“(Caroline Recycling) deserve(s) the opportunity to state their case,” he said. “If you never give them an opportunity to do that, you really aren’t being fair to them.”

Underwood similarly said that he thought the process had “worked properly” and that he was pleased that people had turned out to make their views heard.

“It’s a good process for me,” he said. “Trust in what we’ve put in place and be proud of what we’ve put in place.”