Laserfiche WebLink
pp <br />DEC 14 1993 BOOK 91 FACE 282 <br />and break the debris into large pieces which cannot be used for <br />ornamental landscaping. It is best if the material can be chipped <br />to a small size which can be applied in that immediate vicinity. <br />The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if <br />anyone wished to be heard in this matter. <br />Attorney Mary Parsons, representing Sunnyland Clearing, stated <br />that her client favored Alternative C with the criteria. Sunnyland <br />Clearing works on temporary sites and the site is shut down after <br />six months, so there is no problem with stockpiling debris. They <br />burn only debris from that temporary site and none is brought from <br />other sites. They have only two trucks and there usually is only <br />one truck on the site. There are daily checks with the Department <br />of Forestry and all guidelines are followed as far as depth of the <br />pit and the condition of the air curtain incinerator. Ms. Parsons <br />urged the Board to allow temporary burn sites because Sunnyland <br />Clearing provides a service which eliminates a lot of open burning <br />of debris. <br />It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the <br />Vice Chairman closed the public hearing. <br />Director Keating pointed out that when only mulching is <br />allowed, we have stumps and large pieces which cannot be put into <br />the mulcher and must be burned. In addition, the mulching <br />machinery is prone to break down. <br />Discussion ensued regarding temporary burn permits, and Chief <br />Dietz reported that currently there are three permits in effect. <br />The only private contractor other than Sunnyland Clearing that was <br />permitted in the last six months was Sheltra & Sons on a private <br />site. <br />Commissioner Macht pointed out that common sense and economics <br />dictate that we should permit temporary burn sites. <br />Vice Chairman Tippin agreed. He did not want to restrict <br />trade as a means of lowering our taxes or to eliminate competition <br />with the Landfill because the regulations of the Department of <br />Environmental Protection are changing constantly. <br />County Attorney Charles Vitunac directed the Board's attention <br />to his memo suggesting a possible solution to potential revenue <br />reduction at the Landfill. The memo suggested a fee per ton of <br />debris which could be called a regulatory fee or tax. That would <br />add an expense to the temporary burn facility but it could provide <br />a legal revenue stream to replace lost revenue at the Landfill. <br />10 <br />_ M <br />