Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/03/1995

Home

Page 8 -- September 1995 Z.B. ., 3,7,. would take place in 12 indoor composting bays that were 6 feet wide and 6 feet deep, set on concrete pads. HEJ anticipated that about 120 tons of leaves, yard wastes, brush, pallets, food processing wastes, treated human sewage sludge, chicken manure, and apple pumice would be trucked into the facility daily. The finished product would be shipped out for use elsewhere. The operation was to be licensed by the state Department of Environmental Resources as a munici- pal waste facility. Under the county's zoning ordinance, permitted uses in the agricultural zone included "agricultural uses related to the tilling of the land, the raising of farm products, ... sale of farm products ... [and] structures necessary to the proper operation of agricultural activities." Uses allowed by special exception included sawmills and natural resource uses like "excavating, quarrying, min- ing, and the processing of topsoil, sand, gravel, clay, shale or other natural formation." The ordinance did not include the terms "composting" or "compost facil- ity,'' so HEJ asked a zoning officer whether he thought the property could be used as a composting facility. The officer concluded that composting was not a permitted use or a use allowed by special exception in the agricultural zone. HEJ appealed to the county's Zoning Hearing Board. Despite testimony by HEJ's expert witnesses about the agricultural nature of composting, the board found the facility would not be a permitted agricul- tural use. However, two of the three members believed it was allowed as a special exception. One member believed the facility was like a sawmill; the other believed it was like a natural resource use. A citizens' group called CLOUT (Citizens and Landowners Outraged United Together), which had opposed the proposal before the board, appealed the deci- sion. The court reversed, finding that the board did not base its conclusions on substantial evidence. HF_,J appealed, arguing that the making of compost was an agricultural activ- ity because compost was used to prepare agricultural land. HEJ also contended that/ts activities fit within the exceptions for sawmills and natural resource uses. DECISION: Affirmed. The proposed composting facility was not an agricultural use and did not fit within any special exception. The use of compost in agriculture did not make the facility agricultural. All production would take place indoors and would not come in contact with land or soil. All materials would be shipped in, and all output would be shipped out. Nothing would come from or be applied to the land. The compost facility was no more an agricultural operation than a fertilizer or insecticide factory. The special exception for sawmills applied only to actual sawmills, not to facilities which claimed to be similar to sawmills. Nor was there any similarity between the compost facility and operations involved in processing topsoil. The comr)ost facility would process organic waste, not topsoil.