Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
4 <br />used as a backup water supply. With the expanded pit they would plan to fill <br />it with excess water from Cane Creek. There is a pipe line that comes from <br />Cane Creek to the quarry which can be discharged to Phil's Creek to the quarry <br />or directly to the treatment plant. In additional to the supply of water this <br />project represents, it provides an enormous amount of operational flexibility <br />if something goes wrong at Cane Creek, for example. <br />Commissioner Insko asked about potential reservoir sites. Gene <br />Bell stated that a report done by Hazen and Sawyer identified 12-15 potential <br />reservoir sites. The two largest sites were the Seven Mile Creek site and <br />McGowan Creek Site. The daily yield of each site would be 6-1/2 to 7 million <br />gallons a day. <br />In answer to a question from Mike Nelson, the wetland area is not <br />impacted. However, there is an 18-inch wide ditch that will be impacted. <br />PIIBLIC HEARING CITIZEN COMMENTS <br />Erwin Danziger presented a written statement which is incorporated into <br />these minutes by reference and made additional comments. In the written <br />document is an analysis of what would happen if the quarry were to expand to <br />its current boundary and quit in fifteen years. There would be a significant <br />hole which would hold, according to his calculations, about 1.5 billion <br />gallons of water or half the size of the Cane Creek Reservoir. There is only <br />one reason the Board could make this amendment and that is that something <br />significantly has changed and he feels that nothing has changed. He asked <br />that the Board deny this application on the basis that there is no change. <br />Alan Spalt asked if citizens needed to be sworn at this hearing and was <br />told that land use plan amendments do not require sworn testimony. When and <br />if there is a public hearing for a planned development special use re: zoning, <br />sworn testimony will be required at that time. He noted that there are no <br />complete tapes of the last two public hearings. He feels there is a definite <br />long term benefit of having more water storage in this community than less <br />water storage. Residents who live in the area have expressed concerns about <br />the blasting and groundwater effects which he feels have not been adequately <br />addressed. He noted that there was an environmental impact statement prepared <br />last fall and that the inadequacies of this environmental impact statement <br />have not been addressed except to remove the asphalt plant. He expressed a <br />concern that there were a lot of problems with the environmental impact <br />statement which have not been addressed including noise problems and the <br />socio-economic aspect. He does not believe there are changed conditions. It <br />would change the available water supply. By increasing the water supply, <br />development will increase causing the need for additional schools and <br />services. He feels that this amendment would help produce change that would <br />encourage rapid growth. Relocating a creek would change conditions also. He <br />feels there is not enough information on the table to make a decision on this <br />request. Also, there are questions from the neighbors and environmental <br />questions which have not been answered. With regard to the industrial <br />activity node, he does not see that anything has changed which would favor an <br />activity node. What has changed is the recognition that there should not be <br />industrial activity nodes in the watershed. There is an extractive use <br />characterization in the County which means there could be an extractive use <br />activity node which means it could not be used for any other activity. He <br />would say no to the industrial node and delay the expansion of the extractive <br />