Browse
Search
Agenda - 12-08-1998 - 5c
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1998
>
Agenda - 12-08-1998
>
Agenda - 12-08-1998 - 5c
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/13/2015 3:39:34 PM
Creation date
8/7/2009 4:35:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
12/8/1998
Meeting Type
Work Session
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
5c
Document Relationships
Minutes - 19981208
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\1990's\1998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
66
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
IV. Facilities, Services & Programs <br />With regard to principle #2 (Section 1 -13), sixty <br />(a) Carrboro acquiesces to using no more <br />We reiterate the Council resolution of <br />acres of the Greene Tract should be set aside <br />than 60 acres of the Greene tract for solid <br />July 2, 1998 stating: "Recognize the <br />for use by the County in future solid waste <br />waste - related activities. <br />need to begin discussions on whether to <br />management activities, with the balance of the <br />keep the Greene Tract as publicly <br />Greene Tract to remain under the ownership of <br />Additionally, an easement should be <br />owned land, and if so, what if any uses <br />the current owners, who shall determine its <br />placed on the property precluding the <br />would be suitable. Recognize that a <br />future use. If this course of action is followed, <br />siting of a MSW landfill on this tract. <br />decision about the Greene Tract should <br />the Town of Chapel Hill is expected to rezone <br />not delay the transfer of governance." <br />the property for appropriate solid waste uses. <br />(b) Additionally, Carrboro proposes that the <br />The council opposes the use of the <br />If the Towns disagree with this approach, they <br />reminder of the Greene tract be divided as <br />Greene Tract for a construction and <br />should offer counterproposals that are <br />follows: <br />demolition waste facility and requests <br />reasonable and cost effective. Failing <br />that the Commissioners specify what <br />agreement within 12 months, the Greene Tract <br />(1) Affordable Housing /Land Trust <br />solid waste management activities it <br />would become a landfill asset with the lead <br />contemplates on the Greene Tract as <br />entity making siting decisions and assuming <br />Twenty (20) acres should be placed into a <br />well as where on the Green Tract. <br />control of the property as a landfill asset. <br />land trust for development of housing. <br />(2) Conservation Park <br />The remaining acreage should be set as a <br />conservation park. <br />Additionally, it is our position that, if reasonable <br />possible, the conservation area should be set <br />aside in such a manner as to buffer existing <br />neighbors. <br />Local governments shall continue to work, <br />The only property, which the Carrboro Board of <br />The council continues to support the <br />through the LOG, to site a transfer station and <br />Aldermen would consider agreeing to the <br />July 2 resolution that siting a MRF and C <br />work to develop options for materials recovery <br />purchase of by the LOG are properties tax <br />& D waste facility have priority and favor <br />and construction & demolition disposal. The <br />map references as: 7.18..27, 7.18.27E, and <br />these decisions being made by fall of <br />Board acknowledged the need for siting <br />7.18.27F. These properties must be offered <br />1998. The Council further supports <br />decisions, but believes that those decisions <br />freely for purchase and the properties, if <br />working with the MRF consultant to help <br />should be considered comprehensively rather <br />purchased, are to be used only for a transfer <br />in identifying criteria for selecting a site, <br />than piecemeal. Review of options should <br />station and /or materials recovery facility <br />using already identified sites as <br />include the pros and cons of co- locating major <br />and /or buffering. <br />candidates. The Council supports <br />solid waste facilities: and review of information <br />identifying possible locations for a <br />to be gathered by County and LOG staffs <br />transfer station during the process of <br />regarding model solid waste facilities from <br />siting a MRF. <br />across the nation that are viewed positively in <br />their communities. <br />C :MEPTS\PUBW0RKS %SWlswch1117.doc 6 Printed: 12/04/98 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.