Orange County NC Website
downwind into our yard or neighbor's yards. We don't need an industrial zone in the University <br />Lake watershed. I urge our elected representatives to disapprove expansion -mine deeper, not <br />wider. This is a win-win situation for both OWASA and the community. I think the real issue here <br />is that is it really necessary to expand the quarry rather than mine deeper to provide a water supply <br />far the future. And is it really necessary to subject the area to the real disruption in its rural <br />character and to the environmental hazards that expansion would cause. I believe that the kind of <br />informed and consistent statistical analysis that hasn't changed an demand of the projected water <br />supply that Dr. Kramer has shown us is the most reasoned and reliable approach for answering <br />this question. This analysis clearly shawl that it is not necessary to expand." <br />Annette Broadwell, who lives off Bethel Hickory Grave Church Road, spoke about air <br />quality. She said that research has shown that people who live in areas that have a high amount <br />of Particulate Matter 10 have more respiratory problems. She asked the boards to please take <br />seriously the year's worth of work that Elliot Cramer has done before making a decision. <br />Brenda Eubanks, from Crestwood Subdivision, spoke about the gravesites at Bethel <br />Hickory Grove Church and the seals on the caskets being broken and water getting in. She has <br />had $12,000 worth of work done an wells. She said that Michael Vaught did go down into her well <br />and he told her that American Stone Company and the blasting did affect it, but he also cut her <br />electrical wire and burnt her pump out which cost her another $6,000. <br />Dexter Rogers lives on Broadwell Road. He said that he has cracks as a result of the <br />blasting. <br />LeAnn Neese summarized the issues at hand on behalf of the Citizens Against Quarry <br />Expansion. She said that OWASA planned for water assuming the worst case scenario. In this <br />particular case, OWASA is in a situation where it contractually bound itself years ago to support the <br />proposal tonight. In the three-party agreement, there is a provision in it that requires OWASA to <br />support the quarry expansion. She said that the decision was not OWASA's to make. She said <br />that the boards are in charge of planning for the future. She said that there was an argument <br />made that OWASA did not have a right to the existing quarry, but there is a requirement in the <br />Special Use Permit that the Durham's do something with the hole when the mining is finished. She <br />encouraged the boards to look closely at Dr. Cramer's statistics and projections about the ability to <br />use the existing quarry once it is mined out, and the very slight differential that there would be in <br />available water if the quarry was taken across the road. She said that she was probably the only <br />one speaking against the expansion tonight that did drink OWASA water because utilities are not <br />taken to this area. She urged the boards to look closely at the projections that OWASA has made <br />for growth. She said that the boards were empowered to make decisions about growth and growth <br />projections. She concluded by saying that the evidence before the boards is clear and the existing <br />quarry holds one billion gallons, and if the operationally quarry now is mined out, it would hold 2.1 <br />billion gallons. The new quarry is not going to add significantly to availability unless the boards <br />decide not to mine out the existing quarry. She said that the decision tonight was not a Special <br />Use Permit decision. She said that the boards have to determine if they have a rational reason <br />which would require them to make a change in a plan that already had a quarry, that already was <br />planned to be used by OWASA, and that already supplies the water. <br />Chair Carey invited anyone else to make further comments in writing to the Orange County <br />Planning Board, the Town of Chapel Hill, or to the Town of Carrboro. <br />ACTION <br />Chair Carey entertained a motion to refer JPA-1-00 to the towns of Chapel Hill and <br />Carrboro far decision AND to refer JPA-1-00 and CP-1-00 to the Orange County Planning Board <br />for a recommendation to the Orange County Board of Commissioners no sooner than June 29, <br />2000. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Mayor Waldorf to refer JPA-1- <br />00 to the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro for decision AND to refer JPA-1-00 and CP-1-00 to the <br />Orange County Planning Board for a recommendation to the Orange County Board of <br />Commissioners no sooner than June 29, 2000. <br />