Agenda - 05-01-2012 - 5a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

16 1 Bill O'Neal lives at North Hill subdivision, which is located in the north rural buffer. He 2 presented a letter with signatures from six neighborhoods in the rural buffer, representing 3 approximately 450 homes and more than 1,000 residents that express opposition to locating the 4 solid waste transfer station on a tract of land within the rural buffer at the northwest corner of 86 5 and 1-40. It is essential to maintain Orange County as one of the most desirable places to live. 6 He said that the neighborhoods are committed to working with the County Commissioners to 7 find a better, long-term option that can work for all citizens of the County. He said that this 8 would be the first thing that people would see coming off the interstate. 9 Yvonne Maness said that she is opposed to this proposed site and she said she lives off 10 of Mt. Sinai Road and Falls of New Hope. She agreed with Bill O'Neal. 11 Barry Katz read a prepared statement: 12 "I'd like to begin by paraphrasing the comments Gayle Wilson, Director for the Orange 13 County Landfill, presented to the Solid Waste Advisory Board on August 11, 2010. Mr. Wilson 14 remarked that after a 6-year search for a new landfill within Orange County, several sites had 15 met the technical criteria, but the County Commissioners placed a greater value on the cultural 16 and social concerns of its residents when it rejected each and every one of these sites. An 17 overlapping 3 year search for a WTS site, also identified technically feasible sites but these 18 sites were rejected over many years, Orange County Commissioners have respected the 19 clearly expressed wishes of county residents versus a purely technocratic approach to 20 governance. Orange County has wisely chosen to use the Durham WTS for the foreseeable 21 future for its solid waste disposal. 22 Public speculation suggests that residents north of 1-40 have elected to use the Durham 23 WTS beginning in the near future, but that the municipalities of Chapel Hill and Carrboro have 24 yet to fully commit to using the Durham WTS. Recently, an elected official has publicly 25 suggested a site in the Rural Buffer, asserting undocumented claims of economic and 26 environmental efficiencies as a justification. However, there are certainly strong social and 27 cultural objections to the suggested site. The Commissioners have before you a letter signed 28 by the presidents of nearby Home Owners Associations representing more than 1,000 rural 29 Orange residents. The letter is supported by Orange County grassroots organizations: Orange 30 County Voice and Justice United, representing the sentiments of many thousands more of the 31 County's citizens. Furthermore, a number of traditional landowning families will be contacting 32 the Commissioners either personally or by letter expressing their objection to a WTS at the 33 suggested site. Other groups have already expressed their concerns to us and will add their 34 opposition to this site in the coming days. 35 1 would like to add a couple of other concerns regarding the suggested site. In all 36 likelihood it would be the 75,000 residents of the municipalities and the University currently 37 served by both public water and sewer who would be using a WTS at this site which is outside 38 the urban services boundary. I am in the middle of contacting waste transfer site managers 39 around North Carolina to discuss their arrangements and experience. This much I know, trucks 40 that carry wet solid waste to and from the stations are not always water-tight and they leak 41 material along the way, especially while idling at transfer stations. I know the Commissioners 42 have been assured that it is safe to run a WTS without water and sewer, but the EPA Bulletin, 43 "Waste Transfer Stations: A Manual for Decision-Making", is quite clear about the need for 44 municipal services for a Transfer Station. Furthermore, at a December 7, 2007 meeting with 45 the Commissioners a solid waste consultant, Lynn Klappich, was absolutely clear to the Board 46 about the on-site necessity for public water and sewer. At one point, she was especially 47 concerned in the event of an on-site emergency such as a fire, where very large quantities of 48 water would run off-site and risk contaminating soil and groundwater. More than 1,000 49 residents depend upon that groundwater for all their household needs and the liability to the