Browse
Search
Agenda - 11-23-1987
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1980's
>
1987
>
Agenda - 11-23-1987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/20/2016 2:07:24 PM
Creation date
10/4/2016 4:21:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
11/23/1987
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
265
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
300 JAMES STREET CARRBORO, NC 2 510 (919) 967-3054 <br /> COMMENTS TO THE <br /> CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN <br /> ON THE AMBERLY DEVELOPMENT <br /> July 28, 1987 <br /> Mr . Mayor and members of the Board of Aldermen . <br /> I am Allen Spalt . I live at 300 James Street . I am <br /> Director of the Agricutlural Resources Center and its <br /> PESTicide EDucation project based in Carrboro. <br /> This Board is faced with Amberly once again . It may be <br /> a fine project , but it is in the wrong place at the wrong <br /> time . It is proposed for the University Lake drinking water <br /> watershed before we know how much development that area can <br /> stand and still provide safe drinking water . You should <br /> exercise great caution . <br /> You prudently rejected the development in April when it <br /> ( called for public water and sewer . You were right to be <br /> concerned about the effects--and the precedent---of extending <br /> public utilities into the watershed. But that has never <br /> been the primary issue . The only changes in the proposal <br /> are for the worse . I would like to reafirm my statement to <br /> you in opposition to the devolopment at the public hearing <br /> April 14, 1987. Amberly should be rejected again . <br /> The key issue is density, not the method of waste <br /> disposal . Major development should not be allowed until the <br /> watershed study is completed. My earlier statement did not <br /> • specifically mention extension of water and sewer lines, <br /> though some are now saying that that was the major , even the <br /> only, objection to Amberly. <br /> --What of the new proposal ? <br /> The only changes in the new plan are for the worse . <br /> Chief among them is the plan for a private low pressure <br /> undergraound injection system. <br /> Private waste disposal systems have a mixed record, at <br /> best . They can work if they are well designed, properly <br /> installed, carefully maintained, and not overloaded. <br /> Unfortunately , that is often not the case . Ten to 15X of <br /> low pressure ground systems permitted in NC have failed. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.