Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
1 community—specific criteria. The HRRC said that fairness to people is at the heart of the siting <br /> 2 decisions. The Commission believes that criterion #1, Environmental Justice Consideration, <br /> 3 should be the umbrella for all of the community-specific criteria, and that the criteria should be <br /> 4 viewed in relation to environmental justice considerations. The Commission requests that the <br /> 5 County Commissioners please consider increasing the number of points for environmental <br /> 6 justice considerations to even 25 or 30. She said that she has been told that there are no bike <br /> 7 paths in the Rogers Road neighborhood, so some of the criteria do tend to skew things toward <br /> 8 more affluent neighborhoods if environmental justice considerations are not viewed as over- <br /> 9 arching. A|go, historical and cultural features often skew considerations toward more affluent <br /> 10 neighborhoods. She made reference to Franklin Street in downtown Chapel Hill and said that <br /> 11 this is not high on the list of where a transfer station might'be sited. <br /> 12 Chris Heney made reference to#5 and the definition for Proximity to Schools, Churches, <br /> 19 and Recreation Sites, "potential impact of facility-related traffic through 'sensitive' community <br /> 14 areas" and said that it is not clear to him how this would be computed. He asked how it would <br /> 15 be determined what the least impact is for sensitive community areas. This seems vague to <br /> 16 him. He made reference to#7, which also relates to#9. He said that sites with streams in the <br /> 17 buffers should not be ranked higher. <br /> 18 Loren Hintz said that Environmental Justice Consideration should be the most important <br /> 19 criterion. He suggested including 1,000 feet instead of 500 feet and making the measurement <br /> 20 consistent throughout the document. <br /> 21 Chuck Rosnowick made reference to#6, Residents Impacted, and said that this is for <br /> 22 existing development only and not planned development. He said that there should be some <br /> 23 consideration for what will happen in the future. <br /> 24 Rev. Robert Campbell made reference to item #S. Buffer Zones and Screening Measures, <br /> 25 and said that there should be a 9-a and a 9-b. He said that this area was impacted by the <br /> 26 smoke from the east and if the is a natural buffer with trees, there should be a higher ranking <br /> 27 than an area that does not have the natural buffer zone of trees. There are two separate <br /> 28 issues. If there are trees, then the impact could be slowed down if there is a problem with the <br /> 29 transfer station. He suggested eliminating the 500-foot buffer and moving it to 1,000 feet. <br /> 30 Chris Heney made reference to#11, Impact on Historical or Cultural Features, and read, <br /> 31 "The site that has the least number of historical and cultural features located on properties that <br /> 32 abut the site will be ranked the highest." He asked why it is abutting the site versus the <br /> 33 distance. <br /> 34 <br /> 35 Chair Jacobs made reference to Environmental Justice Considerations and said that, <br /> 36 instead of saying, "on adjacent communities or neighborhoods,"the better word might be <br /> 37 "proximate communities or neighborhoods." Adjacent is a different meaning than proximate. <br /> 38 The public also asked that this criterion be the most important one and have a greater weight. <br /> 39 He asked for feedback from the Board on this. <br /> 40 Commissioner Carey agreed that this is the most important criterion. He suggested <br /> 41 increasing the weight to at least 20 and the Board agreed. <br /> 42 Chair Jacobs made reference to the comment about taking planned development into <br /> 43 consideration and he pointed out#4, which takes this into consideration. <br /> 44 Chair Jacobs made reference to the comment about#5 and Proximity to Schools, <br /> 45 ChUrcheG. endRecroation8ites. gOdhnsp[teDti8| impaotSxvOu|dbeoompWted. Bob Sallach <br /> 46 said that they would look at the number of receptors (public areas) along a route and what is <br /> 47 actually on a route. Chair Jacobs asked how emissions and odor would be quantified. Bob <br /> 48 Sallach said that it is simply a matter of the number of receptors. <br /> 49 Chair Jacobs said that the consultant could address the issue of the 5OO-1.00O-foot <br /> 50 distance. Bob Sallach said that first there are on-site buffers, and then the impact on <br /> 51 residences is ranked. <br /> 22 <br />