No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR90-068 Permit of Floyd Crawford for extension of sewage treatment systemCommissi �r i "7ed adoption of the following Resolution: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 90- 61 r rS CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF FLOYD CRAWFORD FOR A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A MAJOR EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM AND A SPECIAL USE PERMIT DECISION W � y WHEREAS, Floyd Crawford (hereinafter Mr. Crawford) submitted an, application for a permit to construct a major extension to an existing sewage treatment system and for a special use permit; and m LL ° WHEREAS, the proposed project is designed to upgrade the ° quality of treatment for an existing wastewater treatment facility o and to extend service to additional units to the extent there is o treatment capacity available. The plant was previously approved by the state for 136,000 gallons per day. i W WHEREAS, the construction and. operation of the expansion of v the wastewater .treatment facility and extension of• service to uD> additional units constitutes a designated matter of State interest pursuant to Part 1 of Article 65.1, Title 24, of the Colorado M a Revised Statutes, and the "Guidelines and Regulations for Areas and U Activities of State Interest of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado ", 1980, as amended and there is no evidence in the record 0 CD that Mr. Crawford falls within any of the exemptions set forth at ° Cr Section 24 -65.1 -107, C.R.S.; and It ca WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of the County of It I''- Eagle, State of Colorado (hereinafter the "Board "), conducted joint _j public hearing with the Eagle County Planning Commission on April r(iL 9 and April 24, 1990, after publication and notice as required by ?Q law, to consider the Mr. Crawford's application for the following 6� permits: r z I. Permit to conduct the following designated activity of State t g sewage interest: a major extension of an existin e treatment T j g v,.., system (Section 6.04, Eagle County Land Use Regulations). II. Special Use Permit (Section 2.09, Eagle County Land Use Regulations). C9 z°� WHEREAS, the .,_paring concluded on April -4, 1990, and the Planning Commission conducted its public deliberation on May 8, 1990, and based on all the evidence, exhibits and arguments presented, made its recommendation concerning the Application to the Board of County Commissioners as follows: 1. Ground water monitoring systems must be installed and maintained as part of the proposed project. Monitoring must include, as a minimum, continuous influent flow monitoring and upstream and downstream ground water quality monitoring wells. 2. If groundwater monitoring demonstrates significant pollution of the aquifers, as determined by the Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division, additional improvement'may be required. 3. Sufficient land application area must be permanently (or until the WWTF is abandoned) dedicated to agricultural use to accommodate the entire summer wastewater flow. If winter storage is later required, additional agricul- tural land may need to be dedicated at that time, sufficient to meet the increased flow. 4. A water conservation plan for the E1 Jebel /Crawford "1 property should be prepared to assure efficient utliliza- �� tion of the WWTF and associated resources. This plan should also include an inventory and assessment of non domestic discharges to the WWTF. Ln v 5. No new individual sewage disposal systems shall be yj permitted within the El Jebel WWTF service area, (as identified on the Zone District Boundary Map prepared by Doremus & Well, 11- 10 -89). This should be accomplished m as part of the improvements plan for the E1 Jebel WWTF. u; Q1 u 6. A 500 foot setback must be maintained from the boundary of the WWTF for all new residential development and a 100 foot setback must be maintained for all non residential u� V development within the E1 Jebel WWTF service area. 1 7. Payment of any remaining permit processing fees. r� U13 8. After a site inspection of the landscaping of the landscaping, the staff shall make a recommendation to the Permit Authority concerning adequacy. If the landscaping is not adequate, additional landscaping shall be required and the necessary collateral furnished. n1 9. Subsurface aerators must be used to minimize aerosol drift. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners conducted it public deliberation on May 30, 1990; and en WHEREAS, the "ard has considered all e L3ence, exhibits, testimony and arguments presented which were not otherwise specifically excluded by the a ruling of the Board during the hearings. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the evidence admitted at the hearings, the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, finds as follows with regard to that portion of the application submitted by Mr. Crawford in accordance with the requirements and criteria set forth at the "Guidelines and Regulations for Areas and Activities of State Interest of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado," which are regulations designed to protect the public health, safety and environment, promulgated pursuant to the authority of Section 24- 65.2 -101, et sea., C.R.S. The "Guidelines and Regulations for Areas and Activities of State Interest of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado," are codified in Chapter 6 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, there being no separate environmental code. I. APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO CONDUCT A DESIGNATED ACTIVITY OF STATE INTEREST: A MAJOR EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITY (SECTION 6.04, EAGLE COUNTY LAND USE REGULATIONS). The Board of County Commissioners finds as follows relative to Section 6.04:' o 1. (6.04.15.1.a) Evidence presented at the hearing f°, demonstrated that the improved sewage treatment capability is necessary to protect the environment, particularly the quality of the ground water aquifer. 2. (6.04.15.1.b) Evidence presented at the hearing demon- strated that the improved sewage treatment capability is con- sistent with the Eagle County master plan and the E1 Jebel r sub -area master plan. However, to the extent the application seeks approval of additional service to be provided by the plant, the evidence presented demonstrated that such service would be contrary to the E1 Jebel sub -area master plan which states in part, "a public district should be the provider of water, sewer, and recreation facilities and services." L0 3. (6.04.15.1.b) The evidence presented at the hearing demonstrated that the proposed additional service is contrary a to the Areawide Water Quality Management Plan- Northwest Colorado Council of Governments. In part, the policies of the r!, plan are to recognize the sensitivity of regional and local S groundwater aquifers to pollution from waste discharges and to avoid the proliferation of wastewater treatment facilities where practical alternatives exist. v7 cd cd v In rt T4 Z 4. (6.04.1! .c) With adoption of the .5nditions herein- after imposed, the evidence presented at the hearing demon- strated that the proposed development does not adversely affect the water rights of others. 5. (6.04.15.1.f) Evidence presented at the hearing demonstrated that the Mid - Valley Metropolitan District Waste Water Treatment Facility has excess capacity and is capable of servicing the area to the extent necessary for additional service. 6. (6.04.15.1.g) Evidence presented at the hearing demonstrated that approval of the application as it relates to the provision of additional service would prolong and increase the provision of duplicative wastewater treatment within the Roaring Fork Valley. Increasing the treatment capability would not compete with existing sewage treatment services or create duplicative services. 7. (6.04.15.1.h) Evidence presented at the hearing demonstrated that there is clearly a need to upgrade the existing E1 Jebel Wastewater Treatment Facility. The operational efficiency and state of repair will be improved upon completion of the project. M I 8. (6.04.15.1.1) With imposition of the conditions hereinafter identified, the evidence presented at the hearing demonstrated that there is a clear need for improvements to r4 L the treatment capability. The evidence failed to demonstrate any such clear need for provision of additional service. 9. (6.04.15.1.j) The evidence presented at the hearing demonstrated that Mr. Crawford is upgrading his facility to �j meet the waste discharge conditions of the Colorado Department of Health. r� m 10. (6.04.15.1.k) The evidence presented at the hearing 0J demonstrated that necessary easements can be obtained. LB LB 5 11. (6.04.15.1.1) The evidence presented at the hearing 4 demonstrated that the proposed improvements will provide Y) additional protection against potential pollution of the i ground water aquifer. Agricultural lands will remain available for land application purposes and hay production. r =� °i 12. (6.04.15.1.m) The evidence presented at the hearing demonstrated that the Colorado Department of Health has approved an associated "Site Application" and that the proposed development will not decrease the quality of m peripheral or downstream surface or subsurface water re- sources. 13. (6.04.15 �jo) The evidence presen. 11 at the hearing lacked sufficient detail with regard to the provision of additional wastewater treatment service and the extension of an associated collector system, and therefore failed to demonstrate that said provision of additional service would not cause significant deterioration to the environment. With regard to the upgrade of the treatment capability, the evidence presented at the hearing demonstrated the project would improve the quality of the discharge and reduce the current risk of polluting the groundwater aquifer. 14. (6.04.15.1.p) The evidence presented at the hearing lacked sufficient detail with regard to the provision of additional wastewater treatment service and the extension of an associated collector system, and therefore failed to demonstrate that said provision of additional service would not cause•significant degradation to existing natural scenic characteristics, create blight, or cause other nuisance factors. With regard to the upgrade of the treatment capa- bility and with implementation of the conditions imposed hereinafter, the evidence presented at the hearing demon- strated the project would not cause significant degradation to existing natural scenic characteristics, create blight, or m cause other nuisance factors. 15. (6.04.15.1.q) The evidence presented at the hearing °O demonstrated that the project would not create and undue C financial burden. 16. (6.04.15.1.r) The evidence presented at the hearing demonstrated that the project was not subject to significant risk from natural catastrophe. u; 17. (6.04.15.1.t) With regard to the upgrade of treatment capability, the evidence presented at the hearing demonstrated m that, upon implementation of the conditions imposed herein- LD after, there would be no significant impact on existing or proposed communities within the development area. The evidence presented at the hearing lacked sufficient detail with regard to the provision of additional wastewater Y) treatment service and the extension of an associated collector r system, and therefore failed to demonstrate that said provision of additional service would not significantly impact 9 existing or proposed communities within the development area. 18. The following permit criteria under 6.04.15 do not apply: 6.04.15.1.d a 6.04.15.1.e q 6.04.15.1.n 6.04.15.1.s E°P e°4 II. SPECIAL USE fiRMIT (SECTION 2.09, EAGL aCOUNTY LAND USE REGULATIONS). With regard to the Special Use Permit, the Board of County Commissioners incorporates all relevant findings of fact under Section I of this Resolution, as more fully set forth herein above, and more specifically, finds as follows: 1. (2.09.04.1.a) The evidence at the hearing demonstrated that, upon implementation of the conditions hereinafter identified, and with regard to the upgrade of the quality of treatment, the proposed use is compatible with other existing uses in the area. The evidence presented at the hearing lacked sufficient detail with regard to the provision of additional wastewater treatment service and the extension of an associated collector system, and therefore failed to demonstrate that said provision of additional service would be compatible with existing uses in the area. 2. (2.09.04.1.b) The evidence at the hearing demonstrated that, upon implementation of the conditions hereinafter identified, and with regard to the upgrade of the quality of treatment, the proposed use will not' negatively affect the character of the neighborhood. The evidence presented at the hearing lacked sufficient detail with regard to the provision of additional wastewater treatment service and the extension of an associated collector system, and therefore failed to I demonstrate that said provision of additional service would If not negatively affect the character of the neighborhood. v M 3. (2.09.04.1.c) The evidence'at the hearing demonstrated Q. that there is adequate access to and from the area. 4. (2.09.04.1.d) not applicable m 5. (2.09.04.1.e) The evidence at the hearing demonstrated that, upon implementation of the 'conditions hereinafter r identified, and with regard to the upgrade of the quality of M treatment, the physical arrangement of proposed use is appropriate. The evidence presented at the hearing lacked sufficient detail with regard to the provision of additional wastewater treatment service and the extension of an associ- ated collector system, and therefore failed to demonstrate a� that the physical plan for said provision of additional i service is appropriate. u. ;1 6. (2.09.04.1.f) Evidence presented at the hearing demon - strated that the improved sewage treatment capability is con - x sistent with the Eagle County master plan and the E1 Jebel sub -area master plan. However, to the extent the application seeks approval of additional service to be provided by the i plant, the evidence presented demonstrated that such service would be contrary to the E1 Jebel sub -area master plan which P_ O states in par,,) "a public district should �e the provider of water, sewer, and recreation facilities and services." 7. (2.09.04.1.g) The evidence presented at the hearing lacked sufficient detail with regard to the provision of additional wastewater treatment service and the extension of an associated collector system, and therefore failed to demonstrate that said provision of additional service would not cause significant deterioration to the environment. With regard to the upgrade of the treatment capability, the evidence presented at the hearing demonstrated the project would improve the quality of the discharge and reduce the current risk of polluting the groundwater aquifer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE EAGLE COUNTY PERMIT AUTHORITY: THAT, the Application submitted by Mr. Crawford be approved subject to the following conditions: 3. Ground water monitoring systems must be installed and n maintained. Monitoring must include as a minimum, continuous influent flow monitoring and upstream and downstream ground water quality monitoring wells. rD 4. If groundwater monitoring demonstrates significant ko pollution of the aquifers, as determined by the Colorado Department of Health, additional improvements may be required. ry 5. Sufficient land application area must be dedicated to agricultural use to accommodate the entire wastewater as long as the plant remains in use. W 6. A water conservation plan for the service area must be ;� prepared to assure efficient utilization of resources. Said plan shall include an inventory and assessment of non - domestic dis- charges to the sewage collection system. 7. No new individual sewage disposal systems shall be permitted or installed within the El Jebel Wastewater treatment service area as identified on the Zone District Boundary Map prepared by Doremus and Wells, 11- 10 -89. C^. �4 1. Expansion of the system to serve additional units, without further approval, be limited to the lesser of 9 or less units of the equivalent thereof, or 136,000 gallons per day treatment capacity for the system. m 0 2. The permit shall be issued at the end of 45 days from the r date of deliberation and after the applicant has attempted to further negotiate consolidation with Mid - Valley Metropolitan 'i District. 3. Ground water monitoring systems must be installed and n maintained. Monitoring must include as a minimum, continuous influent flow monitoring and upstream and downstream ground water quality monitoring wells. rD 4. If groundwater monitoring demonstrates significant ko pollution of the aquifers, as determined by the Colorado Department of Health, additional improvements may be required. ry 5. Sufficient land application area must be dedicated to agricultural use to accommodate the entire wastewater as long as the plant remains in use. W 6. A water conservation plan for the service area must be ;� prepared to assure efficient utilization of resources. Said plan shall include an inventory and assessment of non - domestic dis- charges to the sewage collection system. 7. No new individual sewage disposal systems shall be permitted or installed within the El Jebel Wastewater treatment service area as identified on the Zone District Boundary Map prepared by Doremus and Wells, 11- 10 -89. C^. �4 P 8. The areas ill the area bounded as follows shall remain in agricultural or open space use: 50 feet to the North side of Blue Creek, the County Road to the East, 200 feet from the pond perimeter of the wastewater treatment facility for non - residential uses to the West and South, and 350 feet from said perimeter for residential uses. 9. A landscape buffer is required on the south side of the facility. The Board reserves the right to review the adequacy of the buffer at a future date. 10. Sub - surface aerators, as proposed, shall be used to minimize aerosol drift. 11. A perimeter fence around the.land application shall be maintained. MOVED, READ AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, at its regular meeting held the 25th day of June, 1990. COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO, By and Through Its BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By: lerk to the oard of Dona-ldf-ft. Welch, Chairma� n� County Commissioners Commissioner foregoing resolutio as follows: �a George A. Gates, Commissioner Richard L. Gustafson, Commissioner t j,t t �'-' seconded adoption of the n. The roll having been called, the vote was 4266t1 B-532 P -454 OG/26/90 15.49 PG 8 OF 9 �d 4 9 Commissioner Donald H. Welch Commissioner George A. Gates Commissioner Richard L. Gustafson yyyy /� J Ai This Resolution passed by 91 --ft-6 vote of the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado. 428611 B -532 P -454 06/26/90 15:49 PG 9 OF 9 oe+ Pi