Minutes 02-21-2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

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