Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
I i <br />• y Y <br />Late clearinghouse <br />Mpirrh 1 ?0(A <br />a t , <br />r Page 4 <br />r <br />5 <br />1 <br />r f • <br />This news article cohtains a good, general description of this flawed and <br />failed site selection process. A copy is attached �h �bI t .. The newspaper <br />co .ncl uded " "that process has failed • again, Th i' ti rye, commissioners determined' <br />the technical and community Criteria, and their weighting, -them directed` olvi�r to <br />follow them when *ud ing 'potential sites, yet- the: consultants puzzling' <br />results <br />f oirited rto largerfla'ws in theevaluabon' process,," Id, <br />Contrary to, 'the E. Ass assertions of community collaboration{ the site <br />lectio � process has been ra ' g ht ith comm urn It outrage. The l� d r of the, <br />, r <br />" 1 �i <br />• three towns in orange county (chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough) have not <br />participated in the . decision - making. , Ther sites were scored by consultants <br />unfamiliar' with th rarezi -and raised many questions from the community. The <br />r L evaluadon process was changed midstream. Witten comm.bnity input forms were <br />a'btuptly discontinued. C6ntra ry to •the representations of the' consultant, host <br />residents neap the proposed site were entirely. una are aof the- county's plan until <br />` <br />Jhe decision, had been made, The ; proposed site has, as 'the EA asserts, a wr l lin . ' F <br />ti. <br />seller one who appears to he using the process for fin rci l gain an! d to secure <br />� <br />commercial zoning for hrsadFacent prope <br />} <br />A, full analysis of the severe problems with the srtiing process Is beyond the <br />sc of <br />-this A comment letter, The'�mportant point t6 to a y is . -that the <br />description of the siting, process in the EA creates a completely false' impression. <br />This ,eras a process that was illogical, convoluted;, ,directly opposed Eby' the <br />community at large., and that ultimately, rOsulted in a badly:flawed selection, r <br />FAILURE-TO ACCURATELY DESCRIBE THE PROPERTY A D THE SURROUNDING <br />AREA <br />WO have already discussed the serious mistAe the,EA makes with 'regard <br />to wetlands on the prope4 Unfortunately, this mistake is typical of other <br />elements of the misunderstanding, of the site and its su rround i n s shown in the. <br />r EA r <br />The EA claims that there are no farmlands pf signif icance, To the <br />3 <br />'cont ry,. this is fore of two prime farming conymuplties in orangd coUnty. , <br />There are viable, working 'farms ,rear the site{ including several .that are.hlstonc, <br />Y <br />r <br />having been farmed by -the ' sa rrre farm ly ' for many. generation. These farmers <br />are opposed to this site for the waste transfer station for many reasons, not east <br />of which is' their safely asothey take their- farm equipment on the rural .roads that <br />ould be used by'doz'ens of'arbage trucks .and large transfer trucks every ,day <br />X r f <br />• ti L 6. <br />• ti <br />5 F , <br />