Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Long public hearing on Oakidge Dairy tanks centers on groundwater, odor and safety; hearing continued
Summary
Oakidge Dairy asked for a special permit to place four movable transfer tanks for liquid digestate near private wells. Applicants described engineering, monitoring, and nutrient-management controls; dozens of residents raised groundwater, odor, traffic, and containment concerns. The commission continued the hearing to July 9 to review additional submissions.
The Town of Summers Planning & Zoning Commission heard more than three hours of testimony on June 11 about PZC26-007, an application by Oakidge Dairy LLC for a special permit to site four movable transfer tanks to hold liquid digestate temporarily before application to fields using a Rain 360 metered system.
Attorney Jory Riser, representing Oakidge, said the company does not consider the operation "storage" in the traditional stockpiling sense but seeks a narrowly focused permit for four transportable steel tanks that transfer digestate from supply trucks to the Rain 360 applicator. Riser told the commission the tanks are common industry quarter‑inch steel units, will be monitored by 24‑hour cameras, inspected visually at least weekly, receive annual engineer certification, sit at least 100 feet from street/property lines, and be sited in a graded depression sized to hold the volume of a full tank to prevent off‑site flow.
Oakidge representatives described operation logistics: trucks will deliver digestate during daytime hours, tanks will allow metered application throughout the growing season, and the system is intended to spread nutrient deliveries across the season to improve uptake and avoid short periods of heavy spreading. Oakidge said it is in routine contact with state regulators under its KO permit and nutrient‑management plan and provided that NRCS and state agencies had been notified; the applicant offered to supply email confirmations to the commission.
Residents, lawyers and environmental consultants pressed a long list of objections. Attorney John Parks argued the application omitted a required simultaneous submission to state groundwater authorities under zoning section 7.12 and called that a "fatal defect." Neighbors described visible "brown trails," increased truck traffic, landscape changes (swales and tree removal), persistent odor, and the risk to private wells and wetlands. Multiple commenters asked for baseline private‑well testing, bonded financial assurances for cleanup, double‑lined containment, and clearer emergency response plans.
Oakidge countered that digestate has been used on nearby fields in past seasons, that the Rain 360 method reduces peak truck events and can be more sustainable than historic solid‑manure spreading, and that the tanks are enclosed with top ports rather than fully open vats. Commissioners asked for the applicant to provide proof of notices and state correspondence and for staff to include all submitted materials in the record.
Because of the volume of new documents and the technical issues raised, commissioners voted to continue the public hearing and deliberation on PZC26-007 to July 9 so members can review the materials and allow for potential follow‑up comment. No final determination was made at the June 11 meeting.
