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

Browse Search

17 1 Waste Transfer Station owners for poisoning this water would be great, indeed. [[Ms. Klappich 2 is currently a Solid Waste Team Leader at Draper Aden, an environmental consulting firm.]] 3 When the public suggestion of the 1-40/NC 86 site was raised, the mobile home park 4 adjacent to that site was ignored. In fact, these homes comprise a socially-rich Latino 5 community, comparable in size to the Rogers Road community in the early 70's when the 6 Eubanks landfill was constructed. Given this neighborhood's proximity to the suggested site, a 7 claim of environmental racism might be asserted,just as it was regarding the Rogers Road 8 community in relation to placing a WTS at the Eubanks landfill. 9 Development at key transportation nodes have uniquely important economic, aesthetic, 10 and social consequences. To its credit, Chapel Hill took its time to develop its eastern gateway, 11 where Meadowmont, the Friday Center and all the thoughtful and appropriate high-density 12 mixed-use projects have come to fruition. 13 The 1-40/NC 86 transportation node is THE NORTHERN GATEWAY to Chapel Hill. A 14 WTS at this node would add an industrial-type traffic flow to already busy and often congested 15 roads, causing substantial delays or disruptions for residents and commuters that in itself, has 16 economic consequences. It would be comparable to having a perpetual logging operation 17 spilling on and off a main traffic artery. 18 Looking ahead, there will come a time when Chapel Hill's ever-expanding population will 19 no longer be provided its high quality of life within the town's urban boundaries. The last great 20 development opportunities will lie at and just north of the 1-40/NC 86 northern gateway. It would 21 be a foolish squandering of an irreplaceable future asset to blight this area with a Waste 22 Transfer Station. 23 1 hope your legacy will be one that protects the land and citizens of the County against a 24 hastily, ill-conceived suggestion put forth in a moment of panic. We have had a looming solid 25 waste disposal problem for many years. The appropriate action for this 21St century problem is 26 a 21St century solution and not by out-moded landfills and transfer stations, especially at a 27 location that risks poisoning residential groundwater, may have a taint of racism, and 28 compromises long-term urban development. 29 1 urge the Commissioners to give no further consideration to the recently suggested 30 WTS site at the intersection of 1-40 and NC 86. Thank you." 31 32 Jennifer Johnson said that she has lived in Orange County for 20 years and she 33 opposes this waste transfer station. It should be in an industrial environment. 34 Thomas Linden said that he is concerned that by putting a transfer station at NC 86 that 35 it would be simply kicking the can down the road. He also does not want to transfer the 36 County's trash into someone else's neighborhood. He said that his solution is three-fold - 37 decrease the amount of trash they generate with a pay-as-you-go process, build a state of the 38 art waste-to-energy disposal system, and put such a plant at Carolina North. 39 Spence Dickenson said that he is opposed to having transfer station in the rural buffer. 40 He said that he is working with a man that works with N. C. State who said that there is some 41 funding to help set up local collection of food waste and turning it into compost. He said that 42 there should be better recycling and food composting in a high-tech County. 43 Christine Lee said that she agreed with other speakers opposing the siting of the 44 transfer station in the rural buffer. She said that this intersection of 1-40 and NC 86 is a prime 45 location and it should be an area of revenue generation and growth. 46 David DiFiuseppe stated his opposition to siting this in the rural buffer and he begs the 47 Board of County Commissioners not to do any type of feasibility study on this because of the 48 amount of opposition to this site.