OCR Text |
Show Layton Beiiies Garbage Want Zone By DONETA GATHERUM LAYTON - Layton City's planning commission unanimously denied a request to rezone sixteen and one-half acres of property located at about 1000 W. State 193 in Layton from agricultural to M-l, which would allow construction of a solid waste recovery plant to recycle garbage from the entire area of Davis County into steam power and electrical power. THE REQUEST was presented by County Environmental En-vironmental Health Director Richard E. Harvey. He is also the secretary of the Davis County Solid Waste Management Board, the group that has investigated the possibility of building a resource recovery plant in the county for the past two year. About 60 people attended the public hearing. Most were property owners living adjacent to the proposed prop-osed site. Some were Clearfield residents who would . be affected by the increased volume of traffic near their homes if the plant were constructed. Others were Layton residents who feared the plant might be relocated in their neighborhoods. THE COMMISSION'S decision was based on negative input given by citizens and Layton City department heads. As Mr. Harvey introduced the proposal to the citizens, he stated he would answer questions about 'the environmental impact the plant would have on the area and questions about traffic patterns. He stated he would not respond to questions about financing. RANDY HARRIS, former Layton City Councilman Council-man and a professional CPA with experience in industrial in-dustrial bonding and other forms of financing that the plant developers would use, has been highly critical of the county. Mr. Harris has stated his research and the experts in the field that he has contacted claim financing the building of this multi-million dollar facility would be impossible at this time. Responding to questions about increased traffic in the immediate area of the plant, George Ramjoue of the Wasatch Front Regional Council stated the plant would not generate much more traffic than already exists along State 193. He said the road currently handles 10,500 vehicles daily. The projected figures for 1985 (after plant construction was completed) would be 10,900 average daily traffic. The plant would be receiving deliveries during normal working hours only. A small portion of the deliveries made to the plant would be commercial garbage trucks. Most vehicles visiting the plant would be cars and pick-up trucks. MR. RAMJOUE stated Clearfield would feel the impact of increased traffic more than Layton. The plant site is located near on and off ramps for the freeway system. Most surface roads in Layton and Clearfield would be unaffected by vehicles traveling to the plant, Mr. Ramjou felt. RESPONDING to a question about locating the plant near the lake or in an area already damaged by HAFB airplanes, Mr. Harvey stated the plant needed to be close to Hill Field because the Base would be the primary market for the steam the plant would generate. He said if the plant were located near the lake the steam would have to be piped a great distance to reach the market. Steam loses efficiency effi-ciency in transportation. Mr. Harvey said the plant could not be located in the Greenbelt zone just south of the base because of the height of the structure. The plant would be seven stories high. The smoke stack would be 100 feet. THE VISUAL pollution caused by a plant of this size would effect everyone within a radus of one-half mile, Gary Wright, a real estate developer with Ivory Company stated. He said a 50 acre tract of land that he hopes to develop near the plant site has already been affected by the suggestion that a large industrial . plant might be built nearby. Rick Lifferth, a professional real estate appraiser, supported Mr. Wright's position. He said value in real estate was determined by value in use and by value in trade. "I own a lot near the plant site. I can't get market value out of this piece of property because be-cause there is a chance the plant might be built. No one living near a plant of this type could get full value out of his home. People living in the area wouldn't be able to get financing for home purchase," Mr. Lifferth Lif-ferth stated. MR. HARVEY said property values wouldn't be reduced. The citizen response to this comment was loud and very unfavorable. After listening to this discussion, Planning Commission Com-mission Chairman, Jerry Stevenson, said he would like to read recommendations from city department heads. CITY ATTORNEY Bruce Barton commented he didn't believe the planning commission could legally make a decision on the rezone because the county had failed to pay the required $150 filing fee. The attorney stated the county was not exempt from paying this fee because it was a governing body. Richard Hunt, Parks and Recreation Director, stated he was opposed to the rezone. He stated the Air Force had contacted Layton City about two years ago to see if the city would be interested in acquiring the pond site for a city park. The Air Force surplus properties department told the city the site would be declared surplus property and it would be deeded to Layton City free of charge. Mr. Hunt wants the government to honor this promise. OPPOSITION to the rezone was voiced by the city engineer on the basis that a plant of this nature should be constructed in an industrial area. Fire Chief John H. Adams said he was unable to comment about the safety and fire protection features fea-tures of the plant because the county had furnished him with no information. He said Layton City's fire department was called upon frequently to extinguish fires at the land fill site. The same problem could well exist in the dumping pit area of a solid waste recovery recov-ery plant. TIME, METHOD and location were the three concerns con-cerns mentioned by City Planner, Scott Carter. He stated the time was premature. The method was good. Everyone should be concerned about waste conservation. The location was in violation of the planning process just completed by the city. There were other sites in the city and in the county that are already zoned industrial. Use these sites before re-zoning re-zoning other areas. James McCowan, chairman of District 6 plannin g division, concurred with Mr. Carter's comments. "There is only one area in Layton that allows an M-ll zone. That is in the industrial park. Build your plant', there. Let industries locate around it," Mr. McCowan McCo-wan stated. HAL HALLETT presented the commission with a petition stating opposition to the plant. It was signed by about 150 Layton residents. Mr. Hallett and Mr. Harris both stated the number of signatures could be increased to include 80 or 90 percent of the people living in Layton. Brent Allen, a member of the planning commission, commis-sion, moved to deny the rezone request. "You may have the right project but it's the wrong location," said Mr. Allen. PLANNING commission members unanimously agreed. Chairman Jerry Stevenson cited seven reasons for denying the request: first, there were unanswered questions as to how the plant would benefit Layton City; second, the plant was not in conformity with the recently adopted master plan; third, what revenues re-venues would be received from the plant was questioned ques-tioned and where would the revenues be used was not clear; fourth, what would the plant do to property values; fifth, what standard would be used to pay the plant tipping fee; sixth, what happened to the promise prom-ise that the federal government would give the pond site to Layton for a public park and seventh, where would the water come from to operate the plant. THIS IS the first of two rezone hearings that will be held. On Oct. 7 the Layton City Council will decide if a public hearing should be set to again listen to the rezone request. If the council sets a hearing, it will probably be Nov. 4. Layton residents fighting the plant oppose a secondary location for the plant just north of the pond site on Hill Air Force Base. If the county does not "renounce and abandon" plans for a recovery plant at either site near 1000 W. and Highway 193 then the citizens are prepared to enter into a law suit. Robert S. Campbell Jr., a Salt Lake attorney, has been retained by the citizens to fight the plant construction. con-struction. He will start legal action on Oct. 15 if the plan is not abandoned, dmg |