Despite presentations requesting to take a step back in the process, the Antelope County Board of Supervisors set a date for the public hearing addressing the conditional use permit for Invenergy’s proposed Upstream project for Tuesday, May 24 at 9 am at the Legion.
During Tuesday’s meeting, Attorney for Protect Antelope County’s Future Mark Hunzeker presented to the board on Tuesday morning, addressing the process of which the project application has advanced to the scheduled hearing. About 40 members of this group were in attendance.
On behalf of Protect Antelope County’s Future, Hunzeker requested the board to return the conditional use permit that has been submitted by Invenergy for the proposed project in Antelope County to be sent back to the planning commission board.
“We also ask that you charge your zoning administrator and consultant to immediately get that revision of zoning regulations in order to adequately protect the property and the welfare of people who are not participants of the project,” Hunzeker said.
Hunzeker also requested the board to immediately turn to the Antelope County zoning administrator and planning commission for a document of regulations in concordance with LB140 to protect airport from infringement by excessively tall structures.
“This is a land use issue. It is not a renewable energy or environmental issue. It’s not about economic development or tax relief,” Hunzeker said. “It’s about whether the proposed use within project area is appropriate in components of your comprehensive plan and is designed and regulated to be consistent with your plan to protect the health, safety and welfare of present and future residents of Antelope County.”
Antelope County Joe Abler advised the board not to take up the merits of the permit to the application at that time. Abler said the application should not be discussed yet because it is not before the board.
“If we are going to be talking about the merits of everything of the application, and the application of zoning regulation, that is appropriate for the public hearing,” Abler said.
Before he was dismissed, Hunzicker explained that he was not addressing the merits of the application, but the process that it had been brought to the Board of Supervisors.
“I am trying to summarize reasons why this matter should be referred back to the planning commission immediately rather than move forward with a public hearing before the board,” Hunzeker said.