Published: November 21, 2009 05:10 pm      

Residents turn up their noses to landfill plans

Neighbors upset over expansion plan, apartment complex possibilities

As far as neighbors of the Clark-Floyd Landfill are concerned, expansion stinks. And while members of the Clark County Planning, Zoning and Building Commission can’t exactly argue that point, they say there’s little they can do to clear the air between the landfill and nearby residents who are unhappy with their neighbor.

The Clark-Floyd landfill recently received property adjacent to its current location in a land-swap deal with the Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Last week landfill officials requested — and received — the go-ahead from the Clark County Planning, Zoning and Building Commission for a change in the zoning designation of the land to allow for the expansion of the existing landfill.

The redesignation in zoning would change the tract of land from agricultural (A1) and light industrial (M1) to heavy industrial (M2) and give the landfill just more than 101 acres of additional space.

The expansion plan has left some nearby residents agitated.

“The way it is now you can’t sit outside the landfill smells so bad,” said Rita Ehringer, Wilson Switch Road resident.

The landfill, which has been at its current location since 1970, was likely to close within two years if it did not receive room to expand, officials said.

The land-swap deal will allow the landfill to stay in its current location for several more years and gives DNR six parcels of property at various locations throughout the county to use for horse trails and to secure preexisting state property.

“This expansion that is shown on here is a 20-year expansion that will allow — beyond the two years that’s left [on the current deal] — 20 additional years, which is the limit IDEM will let you to submit a permit application for,” said Michael Harris, project engineer and manager with Jacobi, Toombs and Lanz, Inc.

Angst overflowed with the idea that the landfill would stay where it is for another 20 years, but the smell wasn’t the only stink the plan raised.

“That landfill affects a lot more than what’s on Wilson Switch [Road — which is just north of the proposed expansion site],” said John Osborne, Cummings Road resident.

Osborne complained about the traffic from garbage trucks inundating the surrounding roads, causing a hazard to local residents.

“If the landfill expands, how much worse is that going to get?” he asked.

While several members of the commission and Harris admitted there are certainly some unpleasant features that come with the landfill, they also stated that the need is apparent.

“It’s part of having a landfill there,” Harris said. “Some of these things are just inevitable with the landfill. It would be like asking to have a sewer system that didn’t have a smell to it. Nobody likes it, but it’s a part of it.”

Commission member and County Councilman Jack Coffman agreed aspects of the landfill are unpleasant, but echoed the overall need for the county.

“The landfill is an inevitable piece of property,” Coffman said. “Sure I admit it’s not the most desirable thing, but it’s something that is needed in the area. We have to have a way to dispose our waste. It’s the only alternative, right now, in the county that we have.”

Although most of the talk was in regards to expansion, the planning commission cannot grant the landfill that right.

The actual expansion must be approved by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, but before the growth occurs the site needed to be rezoned.

The commission voted 5-0, with member Bob Isgrigg abstaining, to send the rezoning plan onto the Clark County Commissioners with a favorable recommendation.



Proposed apartment complex

Another property that had local residents lining up to oppose its rezoning was land off of Old State Road 60, just south of Sellersburg.

Herman & Kittle Properties was at the commission meeting to ask for the rezoning of property from agricultural -A1- to multi-family residential zoning -R3- in order to construct a 58-unit apartment complex.

The complex would be built on 6.7 acres off OId State Road 60, south of Ivy Tech, consisting of one, two and three bedroom apartments, in a two-story building that would average about three people per apartment.

An estimate put the number of people in the complex at nearly 175 residents.

Local residents are unhappy with the current zoning categorization of R2 which has allowed for duplexes to be built on the road, but claim that it was zoned improperly some time ago and should be R1 -single-family residential.

For those residents, allowing a R3 designation is unacceptable and apparently it’s not the first attempt to build there.

“We have been here before about this, in 2006 a similar petition to zone this same tract of land [was heard],” said Jack Vissing attorney representing the neighbors of the proposed development.

Again the added traffic became a cause for concern and no impact study has been done on the road to determine what kind of impact building the complex would have on the surrounding homeowners.

“In order to make a safer road what kind of solution will you have to have?” Vissing asked. “The drainage board would have fits with this, the commissioners need to undertake a massive and expensive road project to rebuild a two-lane road. Of course, the commissioners and the county council are a little strapped for cash today.”

An option asked of Herman & Kittle was if it could build staying with the current land designation of R2. However, it was not an option for the company because of the investment made and the on-site managed property it has envisioned.

The first vote split the board 4-4. Five affirmative votes are needed to pass the recommendation onto the commissioners with either a positive or negative recommendation.

A second vote again split the board 4-3 with commission member and Clark County Commissioner Ed Meyer abstaining.

The commission finally decided to pass the rezoning petition onto the county commissioners, who will make the final approval, with a neutral recommendation.