Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
1 vehicles for the increased travel distance from the centroid of waste generation to the proposed <br /> 2 transfer station site. <br /> 3 <br /> 4 Weighting Factors: <br /> 5 Importance: <br /> 6 • Important <br /> 7 <br /> 8 Value: <br /> 9 5 <br /> 10 <br /> 11 Commissioner Nelson said that he had thought about suggesting bumping this value up to <br /> 12 10, but he thinks that some of the other environmental concerns are addressed in other places. <br /> 13 For future reference, this is the first time the County has included carbon footprint in an analysis <br /> 14 of a decision. His hope is that it be included in most future decisions where it is appropriate. <br /> 15 Commissioner Gordon said that there was one criterion that she would like to suggest in the <br /> 16 exclusionary criteria—sites that are outside of protected watersheds. <br /> 17 Bob Sallach said that the protected watershed criterion was maintained as an alternate <br /> 18 criterion to be used as an exclusionary criterion if the number of sites conies back from the <br /> 19 initial screening to be significant. He said that the watershed could be incorporated if that is the <br /> 20 desire. <br /> 21 Chair Jacobs said that in Adopted Exclusionary Criteria#2, it removes land and protected <br /> 22 watershed and overlay districts. He does not think it should be said anywhere else. Bob <br /> 23 Sallach said that this is just in the critical overlay. <br /> 24 <br /> 25 Ed Shuffler went through Attachment 1-C, which shows how the ranking will be set up for <br /> 26 each criterion. <br /> 27 <br /> 28 \ <br /> 29 <br /> 30 3. Receive Public Comment on Preliminary Technical Criteria and Olver, Inc. <br /> 31 Recommendation <br /> 32 <br /> 33 PUBLIC COMMENT: <br /> 34 <br /> 35 Loren Hintz said that he appreciated comments incorporated into criteria and said that he <br /> 36 wanted to clarify again that the range was 12 miles and not 10 miles. He verified that this was <br /> 37 the case throughout the document. He made reference to the carbon footprint and suggested <br /> 38 adding carbon dioxide under the consideration comment. Also, he agreed with Commissioner <br /> 39 Gordon about incorporating bike routes as a technical consideration as well as the watershed <br /> 40 issue. <br /> 41 Robert Campbell said that it should be made clear how much acreage is the minimum for <br /> 42 placing a transfer station including the buffer. He would also like to know when the ERCD will <br /> 43 come into play in the siting of this transfer station. He said that an environmental document <br /> 44 should be part of the technical criteria. <br /> 45 Stan Cheren said that he wanted clarification on the parcel size. He asked how much <br /> 46 space was available on the existing Eubanks site. Bob Sallach said that they have not looked at <br /> 47 Eubanks with respect to the criteria. <br /> 48 Solid Waste Director Gayle Wilson said that the area, should the transfer station be <br /> 49 considered here, the area available is about 4-5 acres for the structure and facility. It is part of a <br /> 50 large 200-acre piece of property, so the buffers are not included in that 4-5 acres. There would <br /> 51 probably be 200-300 foot buffers and also room for parking. <br /> 12 <br />