Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Landfill topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge supervisors to halt Green Ridge/GFL landfill plan; call for referendum, legal review
Summary
A lengthy public‑comment period at the Aug. 13 meeting focused on strong community opposition to a proposed Green Ridge/GFL landfill. Speakers raised concerns about traffic, health risks, host‑agreement compliance and called for a public vote or further legal review.
Dozens of Cumberland County residents used the public‑comment period at the Aug. 13, 2024 Board of Supervisors meeting to press elected officials to halt or further scrutinize a proposed landfill project associated with Green Ridge and GFL.
Speakers repeatedly warned about traffic impacts, public‑health risks including groundwater contamination and so‑called "forever chemicals," and questioned whether the developer had breached prior host‑agreement terms — particularly changes to the proposed entrance location. Several residents urged the board to place the permitting question on the Nov. ballot so voters can decide.
"Do we want the landfill? Then you will get the exact number of people who don't want that," Pam Hardy said, urging a ballot referendum. Betty Myers told the board she believed the applicant presented "a lot of misinformation" at a prior public meeting and urged the county to "do your due diligence" on the host agreement and the conditional‑use permit.
Other residents demanded stronger local oversight and complained of past experiences in which landfill projects strained county services and roads. Robert Glaser, a longtime resident and civil‑engineering professional, said the county has resisted landfill proposals for decades and asked why the issue was again under consideration.
Board members acknowledged public concern and described legal constraints tied to a preexisting host agreement with the landfill applicant. One supervisor (unnamed in the transcript excerpts) said the board has asked the county attorney to send a letter to Green Ridge noting potential breaches and requesting a written response; the supervisor cautioned that unilateral board action to cancel the agreement could expose the county to substantial litigation and financial risk.
The board also heard related public safety complaints — including multiple speakers reporting difficulties for farm equipment and emergency vehicles accessing a recently constructed traffic circle — and requests for more community meetings and transparent financial information about county revenue plans.
The meeting record shows the board received the comments and discussed seeking legal clarification; the transcript segments provided do not show a final vote to change or halt the permitting process. Several speakers asked the board to hold a November referendum so voters can decide on the landfill proposal.
Next steps: board members said they will pursue legal review of the host agreement and consider further public engagement; residents seeking a ballot referendum will need to pursue the county's established procedural steps for placing a question to voters.
