Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge supervisors to block Hidden Grove industrial park, citing chemicals, traffic and water risks
Summary
Multiple residents told the Board of Supervisors that the Hidden Grove light-industrial development on Cedar Ridge poses acute risks to neighbors because of hazardous chemicals, insufficient oversight, narrow access roads and potential groundwater contamination; speakers urged denial or stricter review.
Several residents implored the Nevada County Board of Supervisors to reject or more closely scrutinize a proposed Hidden Grove light-industrial development, raising concerns about hazardous chemicals, traffic and water-supply risks.
Corey Emmett, a District 3 resident, described chemicals commonly used in small manufacturing and repair businesses and warned of potential acute health impacts in adjacent housing. “This is a lawsuit waiting to happen,” Emmett said, citing material-safety-data-sheet hazards and saying the project would become a refuge for businesses that flout county code.
Other speakers focused on evacuation and traffic safety. Patricia Virch, who identified herself as living in Lake of the Pines, said her neighbor needed an hour to move half a block during a previous evacuation and asked staff for a contact to request a permit waiver for electronic unlocking devices on community gates to improve egress in an emergency.
Dolly Lewis, who lives downhill from the proposed site, told the board her well supplies drinking water to her household and said she was alarmed that septic-system failures, industrial runoff or spills could contaminate groundwater: “Our wells are our lifeline,” Lewis said, urging the board to deny the project because alternate, already zoned industrial sites exist.
Other public commenters raised compatibility questions about placing apartments and family housing above industrial spaces and noted the narrow dead-end access roads and limited ability for emergency vehicles to operate if the project proceeds.
The comments were made during the public-comment portion of the meeting; no formal land-use decision was made at this session. County staff indicated they would follow up with petitioners and planning staff; residents urged the board to give the concerns full weight during any future hearings.
What board members said: supervisors acknowledged the concerns and said staff would be available to meet with the speakers and provide information on deadlines, permitting exemptions and next steps in the planning process.
