Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Waste Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parish council denies preliminary approval for Pinerest transfer station after public objections
Summary
Tangipahoa Parish Council on April 27 denied preliminary approval for Pinerest LLC’s proposed nonprocessing transfer station in Independence after residents raised concerns about leachate, groundwater monitoring, traffic and property values; the applicant’s counsel said technical details are in submitted applications and further permitting would be handled by DEEQ.
Tangipahoa Parish Council on April 27 voted to deny preliminary approval for Pinerest LLC’s proposed nonprocessing transfer station on the north side of Highway 442 near Highway 1063 in Independence (District 4).
The resolution at issue (identified in council materials as R26-14) would have authorized Pinerest to advance its application to DEEQ. During public comment, nearby residents urged council members to reject the project over unanswered operational questions. "Voting for this is like playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded pistol," said Chris Fischer, who identified himself from Kinchin Road and said he strongly opposed the project. Another resident, Ben Blunt, asked whether the facility would handle type‑2 or type‑3 waste, how leachate would be contained and disposed, whether a DOTD traffic‑impact study exists, and whether groundwater monitoring wells would be installed to protect nearby private wells.
Brad Stevens, legal counsel for Pinerest, told the council the meeting sought only preliminary approval to continue the permitting process rather than a final permit. Stevens said the parish ordinance defines a transfer station as temporarily storing solid waste before transporting it to a final disposal site and that a transfer station can operate under the parish rules. He outlined the application timeline—submitted in November, with a TRC preliminary review on March 11 and a drainage plan approval on Feb. 26—and said the application contains extensive technical materials and that engineers (he named Steve Burnham) and company owner Bo Bryan could answer technical and operational questions.
Council members pressed on potential local impacts. One member cited the parish ordinance requirement to consider impacts on property values and existing land use and said Realtors had warned a facility like this could depress values and deter nearby development. Stevens countered that property‑value effects are speculative and that denying a permitted activity requires a reasonable, rational basis.
Councilman Havis moved to deny the resolution; Mr. Sagra seconded. After a roll call, the council announced the motion to deny R26-14 had passed. The chair announced the denial; the denial prevents the applicant from using the council’s preliminary authorization to proceed with DEEQ permitting.
The council did not adopt any alternative conditions at the April 27 meeting; Stevens said technical questions are in the submitted application and that the public would have further opportunities for comment in subsequent permitting steps that involve state agencies and public notice.
The denial concluded the council’s action on the preliminary approval request; related administrative and permitting steps described by the applicant remain subject to state review and any future filings by Pinerest.
