Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-04-1998 - 8gI~ ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 4, 1998 Action Agenda Item No. SUBJECT: Construction & Demolition Disposal Facility Site Search Process DEPARTMENT: County Manager/Public Works PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No~f~~: BUDGET AMENDMENT: (Y/N) NU ATTACHMENT(S): 2/18/98 LOG Staff Memo 3/2/98 CH Manager Memo 2/18/98 LOG Chair Meeting Report INFORMATION CONTACT: Wilbert McAdoo, ext 2625 Rod Visser, ext 2300 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 227-2031 PURPOSE: To consider approving a recommendation from the Landfill Owners' Group (LOG) concerning a process for seazching for a site for the disposal of construction and demolition (C&D) materials. BACKGROUND: At their February 18, 1998 meeting, the Landfill Owners' Group received a report on options for locating a C&D disposal facility in Orange County. Capacity at the existing facility is expected to be exhausted within the next eighteen months. The LOG recommended to the member governments that a C&D site seazch process, as outlined in the attached report, be approved. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Boazd approve the C&D site seazch process as recommended by the LOG. 2 To: Landfill Owners Group From: Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Director Subject: Alternatives for C&D Disposal Facility Date: February 18, 1998 This report discusses options for locating a construction, & demolition facility in Orange County. We now estimate that our current Eubanks Road C&D disposal facility will reach capacity sometime in the second half of 1999. The tonnage disposed of in this section of the landfill in 1996/97 is 33,858 tons, or about 30~ of .the non-yard waste entering the landfill. At the January Landfill Owners Group meeting we were asked to prepare a report which would discuss location options for C&D management in the county. We were also asked to present a suggested timeframe for development of such a facility. On January 7, 1998 Orange County Manager John Link forwarded a request to Chapel Hill Town Manager Cal Horton requesting an evaluation of the Greene Tract for possible solid waste uses, including C&D disposal. On January 12, the Town Council authorized the preparation of this evaluation. A report prepared by Joyce Engineering was submitted to the County Manager on February 5th. A copy of the report is enclosed, minus the tables and drawings (Attachment 1). This report will be included in our discussion below. Discussion The stater siting criteria for a C&D facility is similar to the criteria for an Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) facility. These criteria are: * a site cannot restrict the flow of the 100-year flood, reduce the temporary water storage capacity of the floodplain, or result in washout of waste * a site shall not cause or contribute to the taking of any endangered or threatened species of plants, fish, or wildlife * a site shall not result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat of endangered or threatened species * a site shall not damage or destroy an archaeological or historical site * a site shall have available adequate suitable soils for cover Many areas of Orange County would meet this criteria. Locations for consideration of such a facility would initially fall within two primary categories: * property currently owned by the Landfill Owners Group * privately owned property necessitating purchase Any site, whether currently owned or a site which we could acquire would be required to comply with local zoning and permitting requirements. Currently Owned property The only property owned by the Owners Group which would be suitable for a C&D facility would be the Greene Tract. All-or a portion of this property could be utilized. In considering the Greene Tract we would point out that the value of the Greene Tract would likely be two to three times greater than other properties which could be acquired to support a CS~D facility. The enclosed Joyce Engineering report discusses in some detail the potential of this property for development as a CS~D disposal facility. Geological constraints, tonnage assumptions, size of buffer areas, shape of the footprint, and height restrictions (if any) usually impact the capacity of a disposal site. For purposes of the Joyce report, we provided projected tonnages over the next several years assuming that we would reach C&D reductions anticipated in the Solid Waste Plan. We recontinended 500 foot buffers around the perimeter of the disposal footprint. Additionally, we requested that facility height be limited to that of the permitted height of the South Eubanks MSW disposal area (610 feet above sea level). Geological information was gathered from a variety of sources. The shape of the facility is dictated by the shape of t2te~- Greene Tract parcel . Finally, the capacity of the facility would be further reduced (to about 1 year) if we were to locate thq M&8/Transfer Station from the Neville Tract onto the Greene Tract:° A C&D disposal facility on the Greene Tract is estimated to last for about 70 years. Of course, the suggested 67 acre disposal footprint and/or the 610 foot height could be reduced, resulting in a shortening of the estimated life. 3 We wish to present one final continent regarding currently owned property. In 1996 the member governments purchased the 13.8 acre 4 Johnson Tract, located directly west of the North Eubanks section of the existing landfill. An equipment maintenance facility is now under construction on the north eastern portion of the property. The southern portion of the property is a drainage way which is essentially unusable. It would be possible to place the MRF/Transfer Station on the remainder of this property, if the two or three adjoining properties to the west of the Johnson Tract were acquired (see Attachment 2). From east to west the properties are 4.2 acres, 2.8 acres, and 8 acres. These parcels are long, rectangular properties and in order to reserve adequate buffers, it may be necessary to purchase all three. we have not been asked to prepare a preliminary conceptual plan for this option. However, if the member governments wished to maintain maximum disposal capacity for the Greene Tract and not site a MRF/Transfer Station there, we could examine this option. Other Properties we have never conducted a siting process for a stand-alone C&D facility. The siting; process for a MSW landfill always assumed that a C&D facility would also be located at the same location. Much of Orange County would likely meet the siting criteria for a C&D facility. We could, at your direction, begin to actively search for property that would be freely offered to the governments for sale and for which the use of eminent domain would be unnecessary. Ideally, the site would be relatively close to the urban areas and consist of between 75 and 125 acres. The size of the site would depend upon the size of the buffers (we recommend 500 feet in most cases), the general geology of the site, the shape of the parcel, the capacity objective, etc. We could advertise in local newspapers that we are seeking property for this purpose. The purchase of the property could be funded through the Landfill Reserve Fund - Reserve for Acquisitions and Construction, which is projected to have a balance of $738,250 in June 1998. Timeline for Permitting and Construction Once the property is acquired and we have unlimited access to it, we could begin Special Use Permit application process and simultaneously coaduct the preliminary site analysis necessary for demonstrating site suitability and for obtaining a construction permit frv~,~ the State. We could also begin construction of the entrance Mayrand scale facilities. without major interruptions or delays dus ta:local- approvals such as acquiring the proper zoning and permits, we could have the site ready in approximately 1 year. Recommendation: That the Landfill Owners Group recommend to the member governments a process to site a C&D facility in Orange County by: 1) Recommending to the member governments that all or part of the Greene Tract be designated as the future C&D site and, if all three governments agree, authorizing staff to: S * begin compliance with local zoning and permitting requirements * begin development of the site for a C&D disposal facility, including acquiring an engineering firm to - conduct a site analysis which would establish site suitability - design the facility - obtain a State permit to construct the site * prepare a conceptual design of a MRF/Transfer Station on the properties adjacent to the Johnson Tract * prepare for a public hearing * negotiate for the purchase of those 2 or 3 parcels deemed essential or 2) Recommending to the member governments that they authorize the staff to search for freely offered, suitable property within Orange County by: * contacting local real estate brokers * advertising in local newspapers * following other leads as necessary * investigating properties offered * presenting the Owners Group with a list of suitable sites * preparing for a public hearing * recommending a specific site * purchasing the property .~ 'This ~ presents a reeomaieadation fronn.tbe:Land6ll Owners Cnoup for Ioca~g a corneractian & demolition (C&D) facility in OnmBe CvuntY• BACKGROUND We now estar~c that ..our- cumaax Eubanks -Road CBcD disposal facility wiII reach capacity sometime im the second half of 1499. Tin tonnage disposed of is Ibis secxion of the IandSll. is 1996J'97 was 33,858 tons, or about 30'/0 of the non-yard waste eataiug tb~e IsndEIl, . At the January Laod611 Owners Grasp matting we Presented a:rcpott discusWng: location options . for CdcD managaamR in the Cotmty and suggesting a timefcame far deve3opmatt of such a facility: ''~ _.~ - . A report prepared by Joyce F.ngmeering evaluating the Greene Tract for posmbk solid waste uses, including C&D disposal was submitted to the Couzny Manager. on Febtuaty St>t.. A Dopy of the ~~ p~~Y fotwacded to the .Council and m tie Mentgas of Carrborro and The LOG, at their Febn~ary 18 mewing (Attacbment A), approved a resohgion reco~mding o0 the member goveumaeMs that they rprthorize the staff to search for froely offcrod, suitable property. within Or:m~ge County.. (Attachment B is the staff report presented at that LOG meeting a~ iaeludes the Joyce Eagineexiag report.), .. . DISCUSSION ~ - - _ ... C&D Fuility Silting Ctiaerlt = Tlm She siting criteria for a CBcD facility ue similar to but somewhat less stringent thm tha fvc a Mu~aicipal Solid Waste (MSS facility. ' Matr~r ancas~of County would meet these criteria..: . `....` 7 CBcD F~lty Sim Options .. . . Locatia~s far oonsiAeatioa of"each s ~cility would initiaIIy ,fill within two p~aury PcaPactY anreaily vaRyed by tl~~Laod~31{~O~aa,GcauF member $oe'~mp~ .~ _ . . The C~zoetrc Tract is tltie only propeity featt'ble foc a CBtD f~ty. ~ . The Landfill Owaasu~a+~p raalvpd st tba Febivary I8Qt moeting~ that tiu; Greea~ . Tiact:haald not be Gia~odd for aMaterial R,eoowery F~a'Iity, (11~IItF'j t~fia ustioq or trdtD~diepoaal facilit~-. a :. .. _ - -_ l _.. $ Attachment Landfill Owners Group Meeting February 18,-1998 -The Landfill Owners Group unanimously approved .the following recommendation regarding locating a CAD disposal facility in Orange • County: The Landfill Owners Group recommends to the member governments that they authorize the. staff to search for freely offered, suitable property within Orange County by: * contacting local real-estate brokers * advertising in local newspapers * following other leads as necessary • ~ innestigatinq properties offered * presenting the Owners Group with a list of suitable sites . * preparing for a public hearing * recommending a specific site * purchasing the property :. .Joyce Brown, Chair