Carrollton-CS 890125 (3) MASTERPLAN
Hs. E~thy St~ve~s
Senlor Pl~nne~
Clty of. Carrollton
January 2~, 1989
Re: Re~pon~e to ca~e t/0t-8923
l,~ht hl~st~J.a.[ v~th ~UP fcc Type
Mun~j. lm]. ool~d Waste
Dear Ms. Stlvers:
0,1 beha].f of our c.l. ient, Da].las Gull Club, we wauted to outline some concerns
w.,e have with the I~l:Oposed 230 acre request for a sauitary landfill next to our
'/00 acre £acility. We have met with Mr. lluel Weaver and |lis representatives
to ].enru more nbout the fi]..[ proposal. We |lave uot formulated a position at
thl. s t line nmi wnut to coutlnue our discussions with Mr. Weaver. However, there
nre several [t, udame,~tai issues that are clearly a concern of ours and the City of
t;a I: ro.[J, to~.
Issue Areas
Access
'l'be al,p.Llcaut hns nut secuL'ed access to the proposed landfill site. lie is pursuing
nu agl'eemeut with '.l'exas Uti].lties to utilize au existing ROW off Sandy Lake Road
which bisects our p,;ol~erty- We have approximately sixty-seven acres east of tile
ROW. We believe suitable access must be demonstrated before any final consideration
of approval.
Coupl. ed with the access issue is the questiou of traffic through our property. The
app]..[cant estimates that 200 tons of refuse will be dumped daily. This equates
to twenty [0 ton capacity trucks per day. At that rate it would take 25 to 50 years
to fl].i the site depending on the depth of the fill. Considering the short life
of the existing Carrolltou landfill site and the applicant's economic motivation
to fi[l the site expeditiously it is obvious that the demand will escalate because
of the growth of near-by municipalities such as Carrollton, Farmers Branch, Coppell
and Lewisville.
A~; the ,le,,,n,~d ~.nc~,l:,l;e~ the Lrnffic w.[.I..[ be s:L}ln.Lficantly higher involving all
ml..i.j~ Ol~ernt.l. oll, ~llch n, dni,ag[ng our [once8 nnd the safety of the cattle on ouk
properC]. ~e are to.corned about the continuation o~ these problems.
Screenln~
S.(uce we have iuvested mil.lions into improvements on our property, we are
partlcular].y cuncerned about the visual impact on our site. We can currently see
the m[n.l.g operation from the dining area in our c.[ubbouse, therefore we will be able
to see the refuse tt~ucks and heavy equipment used for a landfill operation.
We believe the best aud most efficient solution to this problem is the screening
500 South Ervay [3uilding Suite 12lA · Dallas, Texas 75201 · 214 761 9197
of the la,~dfi.l. 1 site alol~g its western edge by tile installation of a berm ,
a,d/or solid plant materials to a height of ten feet above a designated
elevation. The elevation would be the maximum elevation to which the
lalw]fill could be filled.
flours of Operation
Our peak utilization time occurs in the late afternon and on weekends. We would
interested in the landfill having operational hours during our off-peak
times.
Finish Fill Elevation at~d Drainage
There are mat~y serious questions conceruing tile proposed.:finish:fi!l...e, lev~a.t.ion-
mild |iow the ,~pplical~t will handle tile "greellbelt" area around tile actual.
fill site. Essentially the applicant must build twelve foot high earthern berms
around tile fill area in order to be above tile 100 year flood level. This is twelve
feet above the original ground elevation which would make this use an even greater
visual intrusion. These elevations need to be clarified in the adopted
plan.
The i,,pact ol~ draln~ge i~eeds to be further clarified~ however, w.~ do believe
this call be resolved.
Enforcement
We realize tile state has tile primary responsibility for monitoring and enforcing
ltcet~slug regulations, but its resources are very limited. Who in the city has
the authority to monitor and insure compliance? Other cities legally assign
that responsibility to the Director of Streets aud Sanitation or the Director
of Public Works.
End USe
We strongly urge tile applicant to revise their application to a single
use PD (Landfill Facility). This would require another zoning request
before tile property could be used for auy other use, thereby allowing
adjolul,g property owners to be notified of any subsequent uses. We want
to co~ttnue working with tile City of Carrollton, the applicant and his
represel~tatives, but we believe specific requirements need to be incorporated into
ally approved site plan and cot~ditions which regulate the above issues.
Please let me k~ow if you have any questions.
Slt~cerely~
William E. Cothrum
Pres'tdent