Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Mr. Collins indicated that the quarry and asphalt plant would undergo the <br />environmental impact review. The applicants would prepare the environmental <br />impact statement which would then be submitted as a part of the special use <br />application. Conditions could be attached to the approval of the Special Use <br />Permit to address specific concerns. He also indicated that asphalt plants are <br />frequently closely associated with a quarry operation because part of the raw <br />material comes from the quarry. If the existing quarry were to cease operation, <br />the asphalt plant would probably be closed at that time. <br />An unidentified citizen indicated that the problem is that OWASA will <br />acquire ownership of the new quarry at no cost in return for supporting the <br />items on the agenda. He asked if OWASA would be in support of this if they were <br />not going to gain a sizable reservoir once the proposed quarry is mined out. <br />Commissioner Gordon asked staff to explain to what extent this is a <br />relocation of a current use and to what extent it is a relocation and expansion. <br />Is the original quarry operation going to be closed down before the new one is <br />open? <br />Mr. Collins indicated that the asphalt plant will be a relocation of an <br />existing use. The old plant structure will be removed and will be replaced on <br />the east side of the new road. The quarry itself would be viewed as an expansion <br />of an existing use. Relocating the road would be the first step. The quarry <br />operation would expand from where it is now and move in a southeast direction <br />toward the old quarry. The new realignment of the road would provide for better <br />site distance along Highway 54. <br />Ms. Eidenier asked how establishing a Rural - Industrial Activity Node for <br />an extractive use in this area is different from establishing a Rural - Industrial <br />Activity Node in other places in the Rural Buffer. Also, is a problem perceived <br />with the impervious surface ratio in the University Lake Watershed? <br />Mr. Collins indicated that this is an existing use so there is no <br />additional intrusion into the Rural Buffer with this operation. It is still in <br />the same area where it has existed since the mid - 1960'x. In response to a <br />question pertaining to impervious surface, he indicated that American Stone was <br />advised that they will need to address the issue of impervious surface when the <br />Special Use Permit application is filed. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR QUESTIONS AND /OR COMMENTS FROM THE APPLICANTS <br />OR THEIR.REPRESENTATIVE$. <br />Mr. Jim Mergner, Vice- Chairman of the Orange Water and Sewer Authority <br />Board of Directors, spoke in favor of this proposal. His written comments are <br />incorporated herein by reference and may be found in their entirety in the <br />permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR QUESTIONS /COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS <br />Mr. Alfred Perry, a local property owner, spoke against this proposal. He <br />indicated that the new road would be near his property. He asked if there would <br />be a buffer between the road and his property or if this would landlock his <br />property. Will he continue to have road frontage? He indicated that the plan <br />would ensure 40 more years of bombing in his area. His trailer park tenants have <br />