Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solid Waste Transfer topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends denial of Culpeper Recycling request to accept municipal solid waste
Summary
The Culpeper County Planning Commission voted to forward a recommendation of denial to the Board of Supervisors after staff said required materials were submitted too late and environmental staff flagged outstanding concerns about a proposed municipal solid waste transfer operation at Culpeper Recycling.
The Culpeper County Planning Commission on April 9 voted to forward a recommendation of denial to the Board of Supervisors for a conditional use permit request by Culpeper Recycling to accept municipal solid waste (MSW) at its facility on Brandy Road in the Stevensburg magisterial district.
The request (case U2250-24-1) would allow Culpeper Recycling to accept and process up to 600 tons per day of municipal solid waste under Virginia Administrative Code 9VAC20-81, in addition to the site’s existing permited materials. Environmental services staff told the commission they had not received all required supporting documentation in time for a full review and therefore recommended denial.
Environmental services staff provided the commission with a list of recommended conditions if the permit were approved, including full compliance with the state solid-waste regulations (9VAC20-81); a prohibition on delivering residues or bypass materials to the county transfer station; limits on daily MSW intake to 600 tons; hours limited to Monday–Saturday, 6 a.m.–6 p.m.; routing requirements for transfer trailers (Business Route 29 to Route 29 bypass to Route 3 or Route 15 or Business Route 29 to Ira Hoffman Lane to Route 522); queuing sufficient to prevent truck backups onto Business Route 29; and tarping or cover requirements for trailers and on-site containers to prevent litter.
During the public discussion, Paul Howard, Culpeper County Director of Environmental Services, summarized enforcement and reporting constraints: “We don’t we don’t have any reporting on how much goes in per day. The only reporting that’s publicly available is reported to the DEQ under their permit.” He told commissioners that DEQ requires annual reporting but that DEQ inspections can occur at DEQ’s discretion.
Applicant Jacob Klitenik (appearing in the record also as Jacob Plitenick) told the commission the facility already operates under a DEQ permit for a 1,200-ton-per-day materials recovery facility (MRF) and that the current proposal would reassign 600 tons of the permitted total to MSW while leaving the overall permitted tonnage unchanged. The applicant showed a concept plan submitted to staff the afternoon of April 9 and said the parcel boundary is being adjusted from about 2.35 acres to 2.5 acres to meet setback requirements. The applicant said the operation is not open to the public and that loaded transfer trailers are tarped while on site.
Members of the public and several speakers from the private-sector waste industry gave mixed testimony. Some private haulers and an operations consultant said additional local capacity and recycling options would be helpful; other residents, local attorneys and community members raised safety, traffic and vector-control concerns and said the county transfer station has existing capacity. One commenter noted the county’s solid-waste management plan documents available county capacity and that private facilities are not required to accept county-generated waste.
Commissioners debated whether to defer the application again so staff could complete review of the concept/site plan submitted late the same day. Several commissioners said staff had adequate time earlier in the process to request necessary materials and that the late submission left staff unable to complete its review. After discussion the commission voted to forward the application to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of denial. The motion and vote were recorded as a recommendation of denial to the supervisors; specific individual vote tallies were not recorded in the planning commission minutes provided to the commission at the meeting.
Next steps: The planning commission’s recommendation will be transmitted to the Board of Supervisors for final action. The record shows outstanding documentation and staff review remain unresolved; the applicant may address them at the Board of Supervisors hearing or through resubmittal processes.
Ending: The planning commission moved on to the next agenda item after transmitting the recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
