Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20081117 - Transfer Station APPROVED 1/22/2009 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TRANSFER STATION SITING PUBLIC COMMENT MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 2008 7:00PM The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Transfer Station Siting Public Comment meeting on Monday, November 17, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. at the McDougal Middle School Cafetorium in Carrboro, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Moses Carey, Jr., Valerie P. Foushee, Alice M. Gordon and Mike Nelson COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS-ELECT PRESENT: Bernadette Pelissier and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: Geof Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Laura Blackmon, Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey and Willie Best, and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. 1. Doors Open 2. Public Viewing of Maps and Exhibits 3. Opening Comments — Chairman Barry Jacobs Chair Jacobs said that the Commissioners-Elect are sitting with the Board of County Commissioners tonight and Commissioner Carey is also present, although he will be retiring before the Board makes a decision on the siting of the transfer station. A. Acceptance of Public Comments and Materials Received from Olver, Inc. at the Transfer Station Work Session on October 21, 2008 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Carey to accept Public Comments and Materials Received from Olver, Inc. at the Transfer Station Work Session on October 21, 2008 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4. Presentation of Transfer Station Siting Process Ed Shuffler made a PowerPoint presentation. TRANSFER STATION SITING PROCESS- November 17, 2008 Presentation Presentation Agenda • Need for Facility • Transfer Station Operations • Summary of Site Search Process • Three Candidate Sites • Tentative Timeline Need for Facility Waste Disposal Options • Eubanks Road Landfill o Remaining Capacity— May 2011 • Alternative Waste Process Technologies Assessment oGBB Report presented to BOCC (October 2008) o lnsufficient Waste Generated to make Waste Processing Technology Cost-Effective Investment ❑Transfer to Out-of-County Disposal Facility o Only Feasible Option Available to County oRequires Construction of a Transfer Station Transfer Station Operations What is a Transfer Station? Transfer Station (picture) Waste Transfer (picture) Community Concerns ❑Traffic— Mitigation of Impacts O Selection of Sites that have Direct Access to Transportation Major Arterials O Provide Adequate Space on the Facility Site so that Users of the Transfer Station do not Interrupt Traffic on Public Roads or Nearby Residences and Businesses O Designate Haul Routes to and from the Transfer Station that avoid Congested Areas, Residential Areas, Business Districts, Schools, Hospitals, and Other Sensitive Areas ❑Noise — Impact Mitigation D Enclosed Tipping Floor Area O Landscaping to Absorb Exterior Noise O Develop Site so that Traffic Flows are not Adjacent to Properties that are Sensitive to Noise O Buffer Zones to Separate Transfer Station Activities from Adjacent Land Uses ❑Odor- Impact Mitigation O"First-in, First-out" Waste Handling Practices that Keep Waste On-Site only for Short Periods of Time O Remove all Waste from the Tipping Floor by the End of each Operating Day D Good Housekeeping Measures — Daily Cleaning of Tipping Floor and Drive-Thru Areas Site Search Process Criteria, Evaluation & Results Transfer Station Siting Process ❑Process OBOCC Established Criteria for Identifying and Evaluating Potential Sites •All Criteria were Developed Prior to Identifying Potential Sites !Three Categories of Criteria were Established: •Exclusionary •Technical •Community-Specific ❑Process oldentification of Potential Sites based upon Application of the Exclusionary Criteria oEvaluation of Potential Sites with Respect to Final Technical Criteria and Weighting Factors oSelection of Potential Candidate Sites oEvaluation of Candidate Sites based upon Final Community-Specific Criteria and Weighting Factors oRanking of Candidate Sites oSite Selection by BOCC Siting Criteria ❑Exclusionary Criteria !Stipulation of areas where development is prohibited by federal, state, or local laws or regulations. !Consideration of land use, zoning requirements, watershed protection, and other factors that may significantly impact the environment, facility costs, or project implementation. ❑Technical !Specific engineering, operation, and transportation parameters that should be considered to assure that sites are feasible from a technical design, environmental, and economic prospective. ❑Community-Specific !Impacts that the facility will have on the surrounding community. ❑Criteria Development &Assessment Process oSolid Waste Advisory Board (SWAB) •Technical & Community-Specific Criteria; Weighting Factors — Review and Comment oHuman Relations Commission (HRC) •Process, Technical & Community-Specific Criteria; Weighting Factors — Review and Comment •Oversight of Final Community-Specific Criteria Definitions & Weighting Factors Recommended to the BOCC for Approval Public Participation ❑Transfer Station Work Session — Public Input Period !Nine (9) Sessions To-Date ❑Public Information Sessions !April 3rd &April 10th •Provide the public at large with information regarding the operation of a transfer station •Provide the public at large with information regarding the site selection process ❑Public Information Sessions (Continued) D April 3rd &April 10th •Receive broad public input and comment on the preliminary set of site selection criteria and weighting factors, so that the needs and concerns of the residents of Orange County can be integrated into the final decision-making process. ❑Communication of Siting Process D Transfer Station Web Site •BOCC Transfer Station Work Session(s) - Agenda and Exhibits •Siting Process Description & Schedule •Approved Minutes from Work Sessions & Regular Commissioners' Meetings •Consultant Presentation Materials •Technical and Community-Specific Evaluation Summaries and Site Maps ❑Communication of Siting Process (Continued) oTelevised BOCC Transfer Station Work Sessions oPublic Notification of all Special Meetings oProcess Conducted by BOCC in Scheduled (Open-Public) Work Sessions and Regular Commissioners' Meetings D Presentations to Advisory Boards and Commissions •Human Relations Commission •Solid Waste Advisory Board Siting Results ❑County GIS Data was used to Identify Sites 0379 parcels > 25 acres ❑Applied Protected Watershed Criteria —242 Parcels > 25 Acres ❑Screened 242 Parcels with Respect to Technical Suitability— Identified Most Favorable Sites ❑Ten (10) Candidate Sites Selected for Technical and Community Specific Evaluations ❑BOCC Selected of Three (3) Candidate Sites for Further Consideration and Public Comment D Site 779 - Dodson Property D Site 056 - Howell Property D Site 759 - OWASA Property Candidate Sites Three Candidate Sites Selected By BOCC for Public Comment Site 779 – Dodson Property 085.5-Acre Site – Unencumbered with Respect to Exclusionary Criteria ❑Heavily Wooded; Undeveloped ❑11.2 Miles from Waste Generation Centroid ❑Direct Access to NC 54 ❑No Water or Sewer Utilities Available ❑Adjacent Land Use North — Undeveloped; Heavily Wooded South — NC 54 West— Large Residential Property East—Junk Yard ❑Owner Unwilling to Negotiate Sale of Property ❑Zoning —AR (Agricultural Residential) Site 056 — Howell Property 0148.8-Acre Site — Minimal Floodplain and Steep Slope Encumbrance ❑Heavily Wooded; Undeveloped 011 Miles from Waste Generation Centroid ❑Direct Access to NC 54; Easement Acquisition (Howell Prop) ❑No Water or Sewer Utilities Available ❑Adjacent Land Use North — Undeveloped; Heavily Wooded South — Buffered Residential; NC 54 West— Undeveloped-Wooded; Junk East— OWASA; Buffered Residential ❑Owner Willing to Negotiate Sale of Property ❑Zoning —AR (Agricultural Residential) Site 759 — OWASA Property 043-Acre Site — Minimal Floodplain and Steep Slope Encumbrance; Bio-Solids Application Site ❑Open Field; Natural Wooded Perimeter Buffers ❑10.5 Miles from Waste Generation Centroid ❑Direct Access to NC 54 ❑No Water or Sewer Utilities Available ❑Adjacent Land Use North — Undeveloped; Heavily Wooded South — NC 54 West— Buffered Residential East— Undeveloped; Wooded Buffer ❑Owner Unwilling to Negotiate Sale of Property ❑Zoning —AR (Agricultural Residential) Tentative Timeline for BOCC Decisions Tentative Timeline ❑November 18, 2008 —Transfer Station Work Session oBOCC Consider Public Comments Regarding Three Candidate Sites oBOCC Provide Further Direction as to Site Selection Process oOlver, Inc., to Prepare Report and Recommendation to the BOCC ❑December 11, 2008 Regular BOCC Meeting oBOCC makes Transfer Station Site Decision Post-Site Selection ❑Site Acquisition — 2 Months (2/9/2009) E Concept Design — 2 Months (2/9/2009) ❑Site Plan Design — 2 Months (4/10/2009) ❑Orange County Site Plan Review &Approval — 3 Months (7/9/2009) ❑Permitting — 5 Months (7/9/2009) E Facility Design — 7 Months (9/7/2009) E Development of Final Construction Documents oSite Preparation Package — 1-1/2 Months (8/24/2009) oGeneral Building Contract— 3 Months (12/10/2009) Post-Site Selection D Advertisement, Bidding and Award of Construction Contracts oSite Preparation Package — 2-1/2 Months (11/6/2009) oGeneral Building Contract— 3 Months (3/8/2009) ❑Project Construction oSite Preparation Package — 4 Months (3/8/2010) oGeneral Building Contract— 14-1/2 Months (5/20/2011) Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey reviewed the slide regarding waste disposal options and said that this report was given to the Board of County Commissioners on October 7, 2008 and posted on the transfer station web site. Chair Jacobs said that this has been a year-long process and the County Commissioners are not trying to slip anything by anyone. He said that the timetable for this siting is tentative and December 11th is a tentative date. The County Commissioners are here tonight to listen to the public. 5. Public Comment* *At Public Comment Meetings, the Commissioners traditionally do not comment in order to allow citizens to have the maximum time to express opinions. Speakers may only sign up for themselves. The maximum speaking time allotted will be 3 minutes per speaker. Barry Groner lives adjacent to sites #696 and #759. He spoke about the traffic impact of a potential transfer station on NC 54 and Orange Grove Road. There would be an impact of large, slow truck traffic and hundreds of truck entries and exits. He said that ten volunteers in the community did traffic counts on six different days at the White Cross Road intersection, and he provided these counts. He said that an NC 54 transfer station would place all of the collection truck traffic on top of an already busy highway. Orange Grove Road is a narrow two- lane road with heavy school bus and bicycle traffic. He said that there are flaws in the criteria. For example, four of the sites are given 85 of a possible 100 points for Traffic Compatibility, while a fifth site, #010 (which is only %2 mile from the other 4 sites) is rated as 20 of 100. John MacNeely said that he would like to know how many sites were eliminated at the 10-acre, 15-acre, and 20-acre threshold. He said that there was a lack of consideration for commercial and rail corridors. He said that there are two viable railroad corridors and consideration should have been given to sites here. He spoke about the costs of trucking waste versus using a rail system. Kim Warhol expressed concerns of locating this transfer station off the entrance of a scenic byway. This would negatively impact the image and integrity of the North Carolina Scenic Byways, and will greatly reduce the economic benefits that would otherwise be generated for the towns in which scenic byways are located. Sites #857 and #573 in Hillsborough are located directly at a scenic byway entrance. She read part of an advertisement for a scenic byway. She said that there are financial benefits of maintaining the byways to the local economy. She stated statistics for tourism dollars generated by scenic byways. Kristin Palazz is from Hillsborough. She said that this siting process should slow down. She said that there are numerous progressive ideas and community issues that must be considered before making final decisions. She said that Orange County has been known as a progressive community and the choices made today will affect the economic status of our county. Jim Garland is a fishery biologist and operates the only aquaculture facility in the proximity of sites #857 and #573, which are being considered for a transfer site. He is concerned about the repercussions of such a site. He said that sunfish, catfish, and tilapia could seriously be impacted by this — along with the plankton, which is extremely important to the food chain. He said that possible seepages, spills, and filtrations of contaminants could impair the function of fish culture and propagation. He believes that a more comprehensive, detailed, and in-depth study should be undertaken in the selection process. He suggested alternatives such as an energy producing facility, whereby waste is separated and/or incinerated or recycled. He pledged his assistance, advice, and recommendations. Mayor Tom Stevens brought greetings from the Hillsborough Town Commissioners. He spoke about sites #857 and #573, which are the sites in the Hillsborough EDD. He said that the Town Board was pleased when these sites were removed. He said that he is here to remind the County Commissioners that he hopes these sites stay off the site list. He said that these two sites, if used, would have a huge impact on Hillsborough's strategic plan. Tatiana Zybin lives in Hillsborough. She said that disposal of garbage and those who plan the disposal of garbage should think about the long-term impact on the immediate vicinity of the site. She said that such a facility should not be located in any EDD. She said that citizens should be aware of decreasing the amount of garbage. She suggested alternatives such as converting waste to energy. Myra Gwin-Summers said that a review of the sites identified by Olver shows that the majority of the sites are zoned residential. This is a bit confounding given the driving force behind this process was to move Orange County's solid waste operations away from neighborhoods. She said that if it was unjust to put the solid waste operation in a residential zone 30-some years ago, it is equally unjust to put it in a residential area today. She said that locating the transfer station in an industrial area and adjacent to the railway system would be the best option. She asked the County Commissioners to think outside the box and not feel boxed into a corner by being bound to the current process and its selection of sites. Robert Summers said that municipal waste will only grow over time and landfills and waste stations are temporary fixes. He suggested looking at the long-term and not wasting money on short-term fixes. He spoke in support of alternatives to disposal. He said that Europe is moving away from landfills and toward recycling, composting, and waste to energy facilities. Orange County is a progressive community that needs to look at a cost-effective solution. Rev. Robert Campbell said that he wanted to remind the Board and the public that the residents of the Rogers and Eubanks Road communities stand together with all communities in the County because the Coalition to End Environmental Racism (CEER) does not want the disproportionate and adverse burdening of facilities to happen in any community. Rogers- Eubanks Neighborhoods Association (RENA) and CEER members want to continue to work to promote responsible and equitable solutions for the handling and disposal of waste and pollution in all of Orange County. He listed the things that the Rogers and Eubanks Road community have been subjected to over the last 30 years, such as household hazardous waste site, construction and demolition waste site, solid waste landfills, convenience solid waste drop-off center, UPS delivery center with excessive truck traffic, the new animal shelter (with proposed euthanized animal incinerator processing and disposal facility), and contaminated surface water and well water surrounding the landfill. He said that the residents have not received just compensation for these impacts over the past 36 years. He said that the residents' concerns about the clustering of these unwanted facilities in the Rogers and Eubanks Road community have not been addressed. He asked that the Eubanks Road site remain off the site list. Will Raymond commended the Board of County Commissioners on this process and said that he hopes that the County Commissioners are not tied to a timetable. He would like to see a Plan B if the timetable does not work out. He said that the question keeps coming up about why so much acreage is needed. He also thinks that the way in which Olver has calculated the centroid of waste generation does not take into account the economic growth figures and known growth patterns. He said that the centroid of waste generation moves north out of Chapel Hill, but it does not move west along NC 54. He asked for more time and patience because he has seen more effort by the community on this issue in the last month and a half than in the year and a half before it. Nate Robinson said that so many people are getting involved now because they are feeling unrepresented on this issue. He said that since the Hillsborough sites are off there are a lot of people that were here on October 21st that are not here tonight. However, the ones here tonight are concerned now. He said that he would like to know how many people in Hillsborough get the digital channel to watch this meeting on TV. He said that people are feeling disengaged and they are concerned because there is a logical flaw here. He said that the Board of County Commissioners is not thinking about the long-term results. He said that there is strong desire of the community to be engaged. He spoke in support of a waste to energy solution. He said that the sky is not falling and there are other options. Byron Matthews lives in Bingham Township and said that the neighbors are alarmed that they are targeted for a new nuisance land use. The neighbors feel that the site selection process has not been sufficiently inclusive or informative. He does not understand why Olver did not directly involve the community, such as by mailing notices to property owners in the affected areas prior to meetings. He read some feedback from neighbors in the Dodson's Crossroads community. This is related to site #717, which is not being considered at this time, but could be in the future. The only access to this site is Hawk Ridge Road, which goes right through the community. This new land use could destroy Twin Streams and devastate these families. He said that Bingham Township lacks the essential things a waste transfer site requires, such as industrial zoning, municipal water and sewer service, proximity to the trash centroid, and proximity to existing significant transportation infrastructure, namely rail service and the interstate highway system. Options for handling trash in the short-term do exist, including a nearby municipality that has a large amount of unused capacity at its waste transfer station and that may be willing to work with Orange County. Other examples are Waste Industries with a transfer station in Durham with unused capacity and Waste Management with a transfer station in the RTP area, also with unused capacity. He asked the Board of County Commissioners to take at least 90 days to find sustainable alternatives. Paul Weeks lives on Orange Grove Road. He said that he and his wife visited the transfer station in Greensboro. He said that 250+ garbage trucks, weighing up to 29 tons deliver 1,000 tons of garbage a day, six days a week, from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. to a one-acre site. This building is situated on a ten-acre lot in a heavily industrialized area. He spoke about the negative aspects of this site such as the odor and noise. He said that Orange Grove Road would become an access route for the trucks going to and from the proposed transfer station and this road is narrow with many hills and blind curves. Cyclists, farm machinery, logging trucks, and school buses use the road frequently. He said that garbage and transfer trucks would present a real hazard because of the weight, size, and braking distance. He asked the County Commissioners to consider what is happening in the White Cross area. OWASA dumps Chapel Hill's and Carrboro's toilet waste, or sludge, on many fields in this area. White Cross is also a prime site for an airport. He said that it would be appropriate to distribute some of these responsibilities around the County. He said that the Greensboro transfer site occupies only ten acres and handles four times as much garbage as Orange County produces daily. He said that there must be more sites available in Orange County. Patrick Mulkey lives in Bingham Township. He spoke about the impacts of OWASA on this community. He said that his wife's family had to sell their farm and house back in the 1960's to OWASA, under the threat of condemnation. He spoke about how OWASA has not been a good neighbor to Bingham Township. He said that OWASA owns over 3,000 acres in Bingham Township, burdening the taxpayers of Orange County because it pays no property taxes. He said that the governments of this County view Bingham Township as a dumping ground for any unwanted projects and it is carrying the burden for Chapel Hill and Carrboro water resource protection, receiving sewer sludge in exchange; and it is a target for locating another airport for UNC. He said that Bingham Township has no light at the end of the tunnel. Myra Dotson said that 20 years ago, her neighborhood became an above-ground sewer, compliments of OWASA. She spoke about the negative impacts of the things that OWASA have put in her neighborhood. Her neighborhood is site #759. She said that this site has years and years and layers upon layers of deadly noxious toxins and possible pathogens. She spoke about the characteristics of the toxins in sludge. She said that the grading and construction of a waste transfer station on this site would disturb these poisonous soils, allowing even more toxins to be released in the soil and air. The Proxy for Mike Hughes spoke on his behalf and said Mr. Hughes has a BS in Civil Engineering and an MS in Environmental Engineering from UNC. He has done some post- graduate work in the transport of toxic pollutants. He said that the site selection criteria published for the waste transfer station lacks an Environmental Impact Statement and places an emphasis on other criteria, which are subjective in nature. He said that with this transfer station, there would be destruction of wildlife habitat and runoff of leachate and this would dramatically impact the areas around it. Mr. Hughes offered his services as an environmental engineer to help find a suitable alternative to the three proposed sites — one with an adequate transportation corridor and rail transportation. Connor Blakeney lives in Bingham Township. He said that he has over 30 years' experience in material handling worldwide. He said that it is clear to him that whatever analysis was used to recommend a waste transfer station 10-20 miles distant from the County's urban centers and reachable by narrow two-lane roads is flawed. He said that efficiency is only achieved where a transfer station would be adjacent to urban centers where most of the trash is produced. He said that there are no discernable differences between the three proposed sites. He asked why a site had to be from 25-80 acres, when the transfer station needed at most a five-acre footprint. He thinks that the siting of this transfer site is a prelude to eventually siting the County's next landfill. He said that rural America is becoming the oppressed class in the 21st century. He asked the County Commissioners to come up with solutions that are fiscally responsible and fair. Cyndi O'Neal lives on property adjacent to site #779 and received the first notice last Wednesday, which was not enough time to prepare for tonight. She said that gasoline tanks are buried across from them and they have had to dig wells up to 905 feet deep at a cost of over$100,000. This water from the well is not even drinkable, but just used for bathing. They have also had to add another$65,000 to take care of the tanks as they disintegrate. Runoff from site #779 and #056 is what produced the two-acre pond on their property. She wonders if birds will be able to drink this pond water after a waste station is built on one of these sites. She said that her family had an American dream 10 years ago with a home and a business, and now their dreams may be coming to an end. She asked the County Commissioners to take at least another 90 days to review this project and reconsider the chosen sites. Judi Loberg owns a business at 5501 NC 54 W. She has a retreat center, The Rigmor House, at a cost of $500,000 to conduct personal growth workshops and to house her personal psychotherapy office. She chose this place because it was so rural and peaceful. Her center has been used for a variety of different events, and as such, she was required to make renovations at a cost of $100,000. She said that she would be forced to close The Rigmor House if the transfer station is built at site #779 because of the increase of noise and smell. She asked the County Commissioners to take at least 90 days to reconsider this. Larry Curcio has a Ph. D in Toxicology with 30 years of experience in Public Health, environmental services, safety, and the human environment. He is not a consultant. He asked how the integrity of the containment of trash and storm water would be monitored and corrected. He asked many environmental questions, which were on his handout (incorporated). He listed the human and environmental health hazards associated with MSW facilities, including transfer facilities. Some include, PCBs, carcinogens, toxic heavy metals, PAHs, etc. He asked some Quality of Life questions, shown below: - How will the transfer station repel birds, rats, and flies? - How will the transfer station prevent traffic congestion? - How will the transfer station prevent roadway deterioration? - How will the transfer station prevent litter and windblown trash? - How will the transfer station control noise? - How will the transfer station control odors and particulate air pollution? - How will storm water and aquifer stability be managed? He spoke in support of sustainability and looking at waste to energy facilities. Susan Walser used to live off of Dodsons Crossroads on Western Park Lane. She is a realtor and drives the rural roads almost daily. She said that these roads are not made for heavy traffic and have vulnerable traffic such as bike riders, school buses, and farm equipment. There is a lot of illegal passing on these roads. She asked the County Commissioners to take into account these safety issues and to delay the decision for at least 90 days. Maria Tadd said that there are so many industrial areas in the County that are far more suitable than the three proposed sites. She asked why anyone would want to turn farmland into a wasteland. She spoke in support of a waste to energy facility and cooperation between other counties. Rick Eckberg is a resident of Bingham Township and said that it is clear that no one wants this waste transfer station in their neighborhood. He spoke in support of a waste to energy site as a solution, which would produce electric power. According to the EPA, waste to energy facilities produce power with minimal environmental impact. This makes garbage a renewable, green resource. He spoke of the specifics of how waste to energy facilities work. He urged Orange County to consult with environmental experts as part of any analysis of waste treatment. Fred White said that he and his wife fled Durham to Orange County about 12 years ago and they live in Bingham Township. He said that Orange County leads the State in recycling, and this decision was made by looking into the future. He urged the County Commissioners not to rush into a decision and to look into a waste to energy facility. He suggested working with adjacent counties on this. Bonnie Hauser was speaking on behalf of Orange County Voice. She said that these facilities are sited near highways and industrial centers. She asked that the County Commissioners take 90 days to consider other options. She suggested the following steps: that the County Commissioners search for a five to ten-acre site that is adjacent to an industrial area and the highway. She suggested sites such as the abandoned truck stop, the industrial center, and the Touchstone Energy Center on NC 86. Secondly, she suggested that the County Commissioners consider a waste to energy facility for the long-term. Experts have said that it would take five years to get this type of facility up and running, but it could take as little as three years. Third, she suggested contracting with a commercial vendor like Waste Industries to handle at least part of the trash until whatever option that is pursued is up and running. Virginia Leslie lives one half mile from NC 54 and Orange Grove Road. She said that we are in a global crisis —financial, environmental, and conflicts based largely on the dependency on oil. Al Gore and President-Elect Obama have called for 100% clean energy in ten years. Every decision made either works toward that goal or away from it. She spoke about the impact of emissions and the dependency on gasoline on the environment. She spoke in support of a waste to energy facility. She asked that the County increase education for waste reduction, composting, and increased recycling. She asked the County Commissioners to delay the decision for 90 days. Ralph Warren spoke about the rank of the criteria. He said that there is a misapplication of the environmental justice assignment. He spoke about the impacts of water and refuse leaving the site. He said that no water should leave the transfer site. Peggy Dodson spoke on behalf of her parents and family about their land, site #779. This land has been in their family for over 100 years. This has been a tree farm and is a wetland area. She said that the family would work toward their grandmother's request to keep land in their family. She said that to put a transfer station on this site does not make environmental sense because it jeopardizes the safety of everyone that travels NC 54 with all of the trucks traveling. She said that transferring waste for a period of time seems foolish and wasteful when everyone needs to be thinking more about conserving resources. The groundwater quality is a big concern. She wants to keep her land safe for wildlife and for future generations. Dan Eddleman lives in Bingham Township and has served on the Orange County Planning Board and Board of Adjustment from December 1986 to October 1991. He spoke about the cost impact of a transfer station in distant Bingham Township. He made reference to a Greensboro Solid Waste Management Study that was conducted in 2001. He presented some materials regarding this. He said that out-of-county disposal, using a transfer station in this proposed area, is three times as expensive as a landfill. He suggested siting the transfer station in an industrial zone and protecting the residential areas from an adverse impact. Sue Dayton is with the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League and lives in Saxapahaw. She said that she has heard some talk about the waste to energy issue and she has been sending the idea around on an email listserv. Someone emailed her today from the listsery stating that waste to energy facilities need waste and that they are a disincentive to a sustainable future that must look at ways to decrease the waste stream and not increase it. She cautioned the County Commissioners strongly to look at the cumulative impacts of the sludge spraying activities. She asked the County Commissioners to look at other sites not in the rural areas. She encouraged the public to visit the table that she had outside with information on sewage sludge. David Mickey expressed support for the sentiments expressed by Rev. Robert Campbell and the Rogers Road community. He said that a waste to energy facility would not be a sustainable process. Joyce Stanford owns land in Bingham Township. She is opposed to the location of a waste transfer station on all three of the sites. She shares a property line with sites #779 and #056, which are adjacent to her tree farm located behind her home. She said that for 40 years her family has defended Stanford property against entries coming from outside the community. She has lost her home, many acres of land and business, Orange County's oldest and one of the most productive dairies in North Carolina to OWASA for Cane Creek Reservoir. The value of the remaining land in the watershed is compromised by the zoning to five-acre lots, which prevents her family from having full use of the property. She said that the water is in Bingham Township, but the greater need is in Chapel Hill. She said that most of the solid waste is in the three towns of Orange County and there is no practical reason for it to be brought into the Bingham community. She asked the County Commissioners to represent the southwest part of Orange County by supporting the opposition to the waste transfer station. Tony Blake said that he supported a waste to energy investigation. He said that there are suitable ten to fifteen-acre lots along 1-85 and 1-40 that would support a waste transfer station and it does not make sense to haul trash 11 miles out and 11 miles back. Dale Morgan said that she supplied copies of her letter to the Clerk and everything that she has to say is in her letter. Carolyn Kizer said that everything that she was going to say has been said. Bob Goggins owns property in the White Cross area. He said that everything he wanted to say has already been said and he reiterated that the idea of a waste transfer station anywhere besides an industrial zone is a bad idea. Warren Ray asked how the County Commissioners arrived at the three final sites within a mile of each other in the southwest part of Orange County on NC 54. He said that the County Commissioners were supposed to represent all citizens, but they are not representing southwest Orange County because of this recommendation. He said that there should have been a site in northern Orange County, a site in central Orange County, and a site in southern Orange County. He asked for reconsideration of this site. Neloa Jones is a resident of the Rogers-Eubanks community, Co-Chair of the Coalition to End Environmental Racism, and a member of the Roger-Eubanks Neighborhood Association. She spoke about the hardships of the Rogers-Eubanks community over the past 36 years. She said that she empathizes with any community that might host such a transfer site. She asked the County Commissioners to guarantee that certain provisions and compensation to the community asked to host the waste transfer station. Such provisions and compensation could include independent inspections of the facility, elimination of solid waste fees, funding for road and utility improvements, funding for an environmental education center, and support for community-based activities. She pointed out that the Rogers-Eubanks community has never received any compensation. She said that she could not stand by and watch the quality of life of another community sacrificed. She asked the County Commissioners to do what is right for Orange County. Paul Brey lives next to one of the sites that were eliminated, but the station has to be put somewhere. He said that not everyone will be happy. He asked that the County Commissioners put the facility where it makes sense, like the centroid of waste generation. He said that the three sites chosen are far from the centroid and all citizens will pay for it. Eddie Mann is a resident of Bingham Township. He spoke about the process that the County went through 16 years ago for the landfill, where there was a citizen committee. He suggested that there be a similar process for this transfer station with a citizen committee. He suggested that the process be put on hold for 90 days. Edward Mann is a lifelong resident of Orange County and his first concern is the community-specific scoring and how some scores were derived. He is also concerned about environmental justice. He said that no community should have a disproportionate share of these types of operations. He spoke about the negative operations that Bingham Township has endured. He said that locating the site far from the centroid of waste generation is wrong and not cost efficient. He asked the County Commissioners to consider an industrial site. Paul Rockwell said that he could not add to what has been said. He supports the waste to energy idea. He said that there has been no comment about the maintenance of Orange Grove Road. He does not want this station in his backyard, but it is inevitable for someone. He asked the County Commissioners to take another 90 days to study this issue. Carol Seagle asked why industrial sites have not been considered. She lives near one of the sites that was pulled for now and she is concerned that the proposed sites were chosen because the people could not scream loud enough to prevent this. She asked the County Commissioners to think innovatively about this issue. She said that hauling trash over long distances is not sustainable. She asked that this site not be put in a rural community and a residential area. Terri Buckner said that she does not live in any neighborhood being considered, but in 1989 she worked on the County's first waste reduction report. In the 20 years since, there has been an incredible job of reducing waste. She does not agree with the suggestion to postpone this for 90 days because it has been postponed for over 20 years. She also does not agree with the idea of a waste to energy facility because the County has done such a good job of reducing its trash and she would hate to see it adopt a new technology that rewards people for creating more trash. She said that there are sustainable balances here and it would take more than 90 days to look at this. She endorsed looking again on the interstate corridors for a suitable site. 6. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Carey to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 pm. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board