Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Torrance County denies Riley Road commercial greenhouse after neighbors cite water, odor and light concerns
Summary
The Board of County Commissioners on Oct. 9 upheld Planning & Zoning’s denial of a conditional-use permit for a commercial greenhouse proposed on Riley Road, citing unresolved odor, light pollution and water concerns raised by multiple neighbors and experts.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The County Commission voted unanimously to uphold the Planning & Zoning Board’s denial of a conditional-use permit for a proposed commercial greenhouse operation on Riley Road. Representative Chris Lee asked the Commission to reverse the P&Z decision and permit his client’s greenhouse operation, arguing mitigation measures including carbon filtration and upgraded coverings would prevent off-site impacts. "We are appealing the decision made by the previous Zoning Board," Lee said in opening comments.
Neighbors and landowners opposed the project in lengthy testimony, arguing the applicant’s materials were vague and would not prevent harm. Resident Suzanne Dome told the Commission, "One such false claim is that the facility will be in the center of the property," and supplied documents and industry guidance she said contradicted the applicant’s mitigation plan. Multiple residents cited dropping domestic well levels, the valley’s windy conditions and the difficulty of controlling odor from hoop structures. County Commissioner Samuel Schropp noted the practical limits on enforcement and the need for clear, enforceable permit conditions.
Commissioners said they could not find the application adequately addressed potential harm to neighboring residences and agriculture. After deliberation, County Chair Ryan Schwebach made the motion "to uphold the P & Z denial," asserting the proposed facility was incompatible with the surrounding pattern of homes and livestock operations. The motion carried unanimously. The decision affirms the P&Z findings that light and odor effects could not be satisfactorily addressed and that the proposal was incompatible with adjacent properties. The applicant and counsel were present and heard the Commission's ruling; the decision may be appealed to district court.
