Orange County NC Website
50 <br /> LETTERS TO THE EDITOR <br /> 1 White Cross ems district r 'e <br /> iThe Orange County Board of Corn- commissioners' literature explains <br /> missioners is proposing that a 200- that this targeted area would be al- <br /> acre parcel of rural land at White lowed to store and/or distribute ev- <br /> Cross (designated BH-2; about six erything from petroleum products to <br /> miles west of Carrboro off N.C. 54) be toxic and hazardous waste. <br /> "targeted" as an Economic Develop- Only those residents living within <br /> ment (ED) District. Apparently this in- 500 feet of the proposed facility were <br /> volves for the most part rezoning the informed by the county of the im- <br /> White Cross land from its current pending action — it can only he as- <br /> "agricultural and residential use" sta- sumed that the commissioners felt <br /> tus, to one that would allow for in- those 'homes situated 503 feet from <br /> dustrial, office, warehousing, and re- the site would not be affected. Fur- <br /> tail uses. The purpose behind this ini- thermore, residents were given less <br /> tiative, the board explains, is to spur than a week's time to prepare their <br /> industrial and commercial activity in arguments against the commissioners' <br /> the county. proposal for the public hearing sched- <br /> We residents of the White Cross uled for Feb. 22, 7:30 p.m. at the <br /> area, frankly, have some problems County Courthouse in Hillsborough. <br /> with this proposal, including the This public forum represents the only <br /> manner in which the board is carry- opportunity the Board of Commis- <br /> ing it out. sioners is allowing for any citizen op- <br /> Besides the obvious environmental position to be voiced with regard to <br /> and aesthetic arguments of bulldoz- the rezoning. <br /> ing 200 prime wooded and farmland Since this proposed ED district at <br /> acres — as well as the question of the White Cross threatens not only it <br /> • <br /> commissioners' commitment to any revocable environmental loss but also <br /> preservation of the rural character of direct human health risks, we ask <br /> Orange County — the proposed ED that ALL our county neighbors sup- <br /> site is directly adjacent to a com port us in demanding that it be swift- <br /> munity of 70 single-family homes ly rejected. <br /> with private wells. The rezoning ordi Our county's growth and develop- <br /> ] nance would allow the proposed in ment should be well planned and eq <br /> dustrial park to encroach within 50 unable — no: something from which <br /> we <br /> feet of these residences (the equiva ou have to defend our communities, <br /> lent of four car lengths.) our homes, and our children. <br /> Once rezoned and developed? the Jack Nestor <br /> Chapel Hill <br /> • <br />