Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 199209171 APPROVED 11-17-92 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 1992 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in Special Session on Thursday, September 17, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. to discuss concerns and answer questions on the landfill search process. HOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioners Alice M. Gordon, Stephen H. Halkiotis, Verla C. Insko and Don Willhoit. COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County Manager Rod Visser, Assistant Public Works Director Mary Barbour, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe, Sheriff Deputy Archie Daniels, and Public Works Director Wilbert McAdoo. I. INTRODUCTION AND OPENING REMARKS Chair Moses Carey welcomed everyone including those citizens who serve as members of the Landfill Site Search Committee (LSSC). He emphasized that this meeting was planned as a result of the Commissioners attempt to arrive at a decision on the testing that needs to be done to provide information for the best site for the County's future landfill. The purpose of this meeting is not to stop the process but to answer all the questions which have been raised by citizens, elected officials and members of the County Commissioners. II. INTRODUCTION OF LOG MEMBERS AND OPENING COMMENTS Commissioner Willhoit stated that the Landfill Owners Group (LOG) consists of three members -- one elected official from Chapel Hi11, Carrboro and Orange County. Al Reimer, member of the Chapel Hill Town Council, is Chair of the LOG. Tom Gurganus is the Carrboro representative and Don Willhoit represents Orange County. The LOG has been in existence since the early 1980's for the purpose of addressing the landfill budget. In 1986, it was charged with the job of overseeing the search for a new landfill. The three elected boards were given the responsibility of appointing the Landfill Site Search Committee. The purpose of this committee was to work with the engineering firm to review potential sites in the County and conduct an evaluation search and make recommendations to the LOG which will then make recommendations to the three elected boards. He read from the charge to the LSSC. "The LOG representing the three governing bodies which together own the present landfill initiated a public search for a new landfill. The present landfill is projected to be filled by 1997." The goal of this search process is to obtain, permit and have the new site operational by the time the current landfill is filled. He stated that the LOG is actively exploring alternative technology for waste reduction as a part of their long range planning strategy. However, any of the alternatives under consideration will also require a landfill. Commissioner Willhoit noted that the LSSC was established to assist the LOG in the search for this new landfill site. While the ideal site may not exist, the LSSC will be asked to recommend to the LOG the .best site ailable. No site available is not an option. He continued with reading the "arge that was given to the LSSC. Tonight presents an opportunity for the elected officials to enter into a direct dialogue with the members of the LSSC and the LOG. ~: '~~III. INTi20DIICTION OF LANDFILL SITE SEARCH COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND THE CONSIILTANTS Eddie Mann, Chair of the LSSC, introduced the committee members. Members present: Chris Derby, Walter Fairbault, Jr., Leigh Peek, Daniel Textoris, Thomas Warren, Susan Doverbarger and Dan VanderMeer. Mr. Mann also introduced consultants Leonard Joyce from Joyce Engineering and Geophysicist E. W. (Wes) Scarlett, Jr. from Bain, Palmer and Associates. IV. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROCESS TO DATE Mr. Mann described the landfill search process to date. They began their process in April, 1990. The group first became familiar with the concept of a landfill and the process they would need to follow. A screening criteria, including those mandated by law, was developed. One of the criteria was that they would find a minimum of 300 acres. The consultants were then asked to apply this criteria to Orange County. From this information maps showing the potential landfill sites were developed. As a way of rating these sites a list of ranking criteria was developed where percentage values were assigned to certain criteria. This was the basis for comparing the sites. They had visited each site and held many meetings. In November, 1991 the LSSC selected four sites for further testing. In March of 1992 they selected two sites for geotechnical testing, OC3 and OC17. Site OC3 was deleted because they were told that it would not be permitted by the State. They then added OC2, OC9 and OC11 for geotechnical testing. QIIESTION: What alternatives are there for less intrusive site examination methods, such as seismic refraction. Were these considered in the process? If so, why were they not chosen? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the testing proposed by Joyce Engineering versus any alternatives? What are the advantages and disadvantages of simultaneous versus sequential testing of multiple sites? ANSWER: Mr. Joyce talked first about the purpose of the geotechnical testing. When locating a landfill there are certain site features that are absolutely essential. This includes subsurface features of the land such as depth and quantity and types of soils on a site, the depth of rock, the geology characteristics in the area, and information regarding the ground water underneath the site. These factors greatly influence the design, permitting, construction and operation of a landfill site. This would provide the necessary information to enable Joyce Engineering to do preliminary engineering evaluations as to how much life each site had and the limitations the land had in developing a landfill. This would provide the LOG the technical quantitative information so they could do a relative comparison of each site. 3 Mr. Scarlett talked about the different methods of testing. He does not feel that geophysics can be used solely to characterize sites. Geophysical techniques are almost invariably indirect. These techniques measure characteristics and responses that are caused by what is in the subsurface but not directly looking at what is there. These indirect methods lead to non-unique solutions. Correlative data, along with experience and common sense is used to construct the models which lead to interpretation. He pointed out. that the quality of data has a lot more to do with conditions than the operator. He referred to the letter from Aquaterra giving all the techniques. He noted that they all can provide an answer but none can give all the information needed to make a decision. They use the date from borings and geophysics together so that they can take their known points and extend that to cover a lot more area. Chair Carey asked Mr. Scarlett to review the different geophysical techniques and to indicate if any of these methods will provide enough information to exclude some sites before going to more invasive type testing. Mr. Scarlett noted that with the exception of airborne geophysics and over water geophysics there are no non-invasive geophysical techniques. To get geophysical data, entry is required to the site. A survey must be done and paths must be cut and markers will have to be left. This is less invasive but not non-invasive. MAGNETIC PROSPECTING would look at the variations in the earth's magnetic field. This technique provides information on the distortion to the magnetic field. Certain rocks which have more iron in them will cause more distortions to the magnetic field. The critical issue is how fine a net will be used. If looking for small features, this would require close gritting over a hugh area and the cost could be as much as $600 an .acre. In his opinion magnetic prospecting has a place but not at the front end of site evaluations. ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY SOUNDINGS has been used for decades. It is labor intensive. Wires are run from a central location at increasing intervals and the response of the earth is measured to an applied voltage which then can be backtracked through to give the electrical properties of the subsurface. This would provide a vertical profile to the earth's resistance. It varies according to water content, rock type, etc. Interpretation tends to be more subjective than other techniques. It will give a good idea of vertical distribution of resistivity which can identify the location of ground water and bedrock but does not normally end up being very accurate. Supporting data would be necessary with this type of testing. Electrical resistivity can give some information on soil or rock depth. It will not provide information on characteristics or type of rock. It will have some applications but is not something he would use in differentiating sites. Unless there is one site that is tremendously different from the others, this type of testing will not provide conclusive data from which to make a decision. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Scarlett stated that an ideal site is one where ground water is 1,000 feet below the surface with deep soil and with a high enough clay content so that water is not going anywhere when it leaks out. He noted that magnetic testing will not give any information in the quantitative sense on groundwater or depth or type of rock or soil types. It will tell if there is a diabase dike. If there is not a system of dikes which. are extensive over the area and extending outside of the landfill itself, then it is not going to be of great consequence in developing the landfill. Diabase dike sometimes run for miles. Mr. Joyce stated that the size of the site is a function of the depth of soil and a function of depth to ground water. The features of a site they want for a landfill includes deep soil, soil with special characteristics, deep ground water, tight geology and the ability to predict the direction and flow of groundwater from the site. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon about the minimum amount of area that is needed for the actual landfill, Mr. Joyce stated that the size of the lot is the function of the depth of soil and the depth of groundwater -- how much soil can be excavated before reaching the material that can be excavated. A perfect site has very deep soil with some having a high clay content. From an engineering standpoint they want deep soil and soil with certain characteristics and a deep water table with information about the direction and flow of the groundwater. They have to understand the subsurface conditions before they can determine the volume and thus the size of the lot. SEISMIC REFRACTION can sometimes detect depth to ground water. In this area, the soil characteristics are hard to determine. Because ground water does not sit in the soil as it does with sand, it is difficult to distinguish depth to ground water on seismic records. This will provide an average feel for determining depth to bedrock.. He does not like to do this type of testing unsupported by other techniques. Commissioner Willhoit referred to the four sites in the Piedmont and asked about the likelihood of eliminating a site with the use of geophysical methods which would identify fatal flaws or undesirable characteristics without proceeding to the trenching. Mr. Scarlett noted there are no techniques that take the place of trenching. Trenching is done to gain soil samples to take to the lab to get real numbers. None of these techniques are going to give this information. One alternative is to do all these techniques and do an additional ranking from that data. It would not tell which sites to keep on the list and which to eliminate. He explained that enough investigation needs to be done on each site to determine if one is better than another. Mr. Joyce addressed this same question of whether or not sites can be eliminated by using geophysical techniques only. He explained it is very complicated to get reliable data purely on geophysical work. His firm feels it is much more reliable to have invasive drilling on the site and in some cases to compliment the type of geophysical work and confirm what Mr. Scarlett is talking about. He stated that it may be possible to eliminate a site 5 be very unreliable, e of physical purely on geophysical data but he feels the dwithout some typ subject to a lot ofnvariations done on the site- landfill. the results. When the committee wants ~ thout reliable dr i 11 ing to conf it f or a ineering evaluations of those sites. Iwith they will wantnt~ don=eliablenengltability eliable and the reliability data, they can receive be r drilling on very important that the data they of actually geophysical work is not as high as the reliability that site. ht sites to be testing? What factors did the LSS QUESTION: Are these the rig from active consideration at which sites to drop rocesses were involve What consider in determining rocess? What thought p various stages of the p at the current list of four site them better vcandidatesaforntesting arriving characterothers on theslist?r sites ma than th Warren stated that these are the sites that the commit es. the site ranking process have ANSWER. Tom criteria and through the right four site through the screening It took 1-1/2 years in the chosen. The committee feels that these2arearsrrent y rocess has been going on for 2-1/ y rocess was complicated and does This p process to choose these ftoo numerous to 1 st tonight. involve a lot of factors, issioner Gordon indicated she nS tes,additional information on Comm how the LSSC made their decision on the four ossibility acent to site OC2 TION: The OWASA Board of Direct Cane Creek Reservoir adjt t e P is during QUES Lake from sp of groundwater contamination of t e How did the LSSC and potential harm to se or leachate to orvfrom this OC2 on the active list? transport of either refu 'n of the site, with what degree of certainty would consider these concer stin the decision to leave si a Cane Creek would not be After geotechnical to g osition paper we be able to say that groundwater contamination of roblem? Please address the concerns raised in the OWASA p a p 1992. dated February 27, eer ointed out that from then outset one of their firs standards, guidelines, ANSWER: Dan VanderM p would not violate a of a landfill. One of the ma criteria was that they regulations or laws that would prevent the siting ere concerned about was whet eer or not a site that they is an laws or any regulations that things they w Site OC2 select for a potential landfill wouly,'ater for other ground water. rotect drinking way impact the reservoir were designed to p law. The question becomes what is Tth Y have far removed from theotected oby and does not in a nto the system. in a way that is pr es and taken intc beyond the legal protection that has been es and rock typ that is available on the topography. From all availablE looked at all thdataailable data on soil typ s sited there and failed, the account all the data, if in the worse case the landfill wa The don't know this as dwater flow and the direction of matyrials out of that sl E direction of groun would not go in the direction of the reservo oint. With reference to t fact but it is tOwASA P sumption at this P t osition paper that „1hedNC Health Department n Th statement in the with Dr. Greg Smith of past", he spent one day 6 report in which this statement was made was an analysis of leakage from landfills that were designed using far less rigorous standards and landfills that were permitted to accept materials that would not be permitted by this landfill. For that reason it would be highly unlikely that the leakage would extend into the Cane Creek Reservoir. They really won't know what the risks are until they do adequate geotechnical testing including borings and all other appropriate testing. They want to get more specific data with respect to the topography and the groundwater flow and soil types so they can make a better judgment of any threat to Cane Creek. Spills and accidents are always possible with respect to any landfill and the probability of a spill increases with distance from the center of waste generation. The greatest threat to surface bodies of water is not from buried substances. The major threat is from runoff from pesticides and land development. He found it curious that OWASA would be so dead set against the landfill in the watershed area that has a sludge demonstration site in the same area. In answer to a question from Commissioner Insko, Dan Textoris explained that they have not done any geotechnical work or subsurface investigation but expect that the groundwater flow based on the surface features -- drainage ways and the ridges -- will follow those features. Until they go on site and do the geotechnical work they cannot state which way the water will flow and if it will go into Cane Creek. The design of the liner system, the leachate collection system and any kind of safety measures, if one of these systems were to fail, would be included in the design consideration. Any unique feature such as the reservoir is a concern and they would want to be able to reliably predict what the groundwater flow will do on the site. As they do the different levels of geotechnical investigation, they may be able to predict what the groundwater will do at one level and may need additional information on the other levels. In answer to a question from Commissioner Willhoit about the aquatic weeds, Dan Textoris stated he has no data on this issue at this time. QIIESTION: Was site OC-1 removed from the active list because of the presence of a diabase dike? Could any portion of the site be used as a landfill, even if a diabase dike is present? ANSWER: Dan Textoris indicated that it was removed based on rock type that was present. The dike cut right through the middle of 500 acres. He noted that one of the primary objections to the triacic Chathem-Wake site revolves around diabase dikes being present. Some smaller portion of this site could possibly be used as a landfill. QIIESTION: In leaving site OC-9 on the active list, how did the LSSC address the problem of routing sanitation trucks through downtown Hillsborough on Churton Street? ANSWER: Leigh Peek stated that sites were judged on totality. The committee recognized that going down Churton Street was not an optimal solution. They know that there are transportation plans that have alternate routes around Hillsborough and although they are not there now, at a preliminary stage of 7 estigation, they are looking at this site as a totality. Champion Paper 'pany has 330 acres for sale which makes ,this site very attractive. If the andfill was put north of Hillsborough, there are other things to consider. In answer to Commissioner Willhoit, Eddie Mann stated that at a point in the process the Committee reached the conclusion that they could all agree on two sites and the original charge was that they come forward with a minimum of two and a maximum of four sites. The charge was changed to a minimum of three. The committee at that point added two back to the list. QUESTION: ..Why was site OC-10 removed from the active list, but site OC-11 left on, when both feed into the Eno River? ANSWER: Chris Derby stated that although the Eno River was an issue with both these sites, the factor they considered most was the steep topography of site 10 which would limit development of 1800 acres and two wet marshy areas on the site. This would leave approximately 700 acres. Eddie Mann emphasized that the impact on the Eno River State Park was a significant consideration. There was a divided vote on leaving this on the list. Joyce Engineering clarified that in their report dated November 11 presented to the LSSC, OC10 had a total acreage of 1859 acres. By excluding mandatory buffers there would be an acreage of 1474. By excluding both mandatory and advisory buffers, the usable acreage would be 741 acres. There is much steeper topography on this site compared to OC11. Susan Doverbarger stated it hard to believe that, after touring that property, there were 750 acres that were not rocky and steep. Some of the other factors about that particular site is that highway 70 cannot tolerate a lot more traffic. During rush hour it is hard to access the highway. Another reason is that if the landfill was placed at the highway 70 end of that property, the drainage would be directly into a ditch along the highway which feeds directly into. Stoney Creek which feeds directly into the Eno. Eddie Mann pointed out that the LSSC voted three times on putting this site on the list and while there were some in favor of putting it on the list, there was never a majority. Mr. Joyce stated that OC11 had a total acreage of 1643 acres. Excluding the mandatory buffer reduces it to 1148 acres and excluding the mandatory and advisory buffers, it is reduced to 1134 acres. QUESTION: The reason given for the large acreage of all the proposed landfill sites is that it is necessary to include all a property owner's lands because he/she. .will be unable to. develop/use property adjacent to landfill. What would be the cost of such large tracts of land? What sort of tax burden would this put on tax payers? Can we afford such large tracts of land? ANSWER: Mr. Joyce explained that one of the reasons for including an entire tract of land that is owned by one landowner is so that at this point in the process the committee would not have to make the decision on which part to not include. It was a matter of courtesy to the landowner to not consider part. of the property but to consider the entire tract of land. Commissioner Willhoit noted that he had asked that figures be provided for each site under consideration of the potential area that would be the for a landfill. Leonard Joyce noted that for the four sites under ration at this time he has the actual acreage that will be needed for ill. He reported the following information: SITE AMEBAS TOTAL ACREAGE USABLE ACREAGE FILL AREA 2 1,068 818 506 300-450 acres 9 1,113 824 598 100-200 acres it 827 1,643 1,134 350-450 acres 17 475 853 514 150-250 acres In answer to a question from Commissioner Insko on the number of years a landfill of this size could be used, Mr. Joyce stated that, making a relative comparison without knowing anything about the subsurface conditions but purely because of the size of acreage, site OC11 would last slightly longer than site OC17. QUESTION: (Two similar questions) (1) Taking into account our present landfill rate of acreage use, new federal regulations, and mandated state reduction goals, why wouldn't less than 200 acres of land be sufficient for the next 20 years? (2) The next landfill will likely be much smaller than the total area of the sites now under consideration. What are the factors (buffers, for example) that make the landfill sites as large as they are? Can we cite smaller landfill site sizes and begin talking in those terms? ANSWER: Mr. Joyce stated that throughout this process, the logic has been to go from a general size down to a more specific size based on the process they have been following. The acreage quoted was based on work as it progressed. It is important to understand and remember that, at this point in the process, engineers have not been on any of the sites and know nothing about the subsurface conditions. His advice to the committee throughout this process is that it is more prudent at this point to start with a larger area and work toward a smaller area. There will be information they will discover as the process continues that will reduce these sizes. Some of the possibilities that may reduce the acreage include (1) knowing the physical features and limitations these may impose - groundwater elevations, depth of soil, depth to rock, wetlands, and drainage ways, (2) when developing a landfill site, understanding how many soil resources (quantity and characteristics) are present on that particular site for the entire life of that site. He emphasized that within these sizes identified, there likely will be areas that may not be able to be used for development or may need to be used for borrow areas which will further reduce the amount of development area and impact the life of that particular site. When the final decision on a particular site is made, the issues will be the impact of that site to the neighbors, noise, dust, odors and traffic problems. If there is a site that is large enough and there is some room to apply some additional buffers to compensate for some of these concerns, the neighbors can be easier to work with. Another issue is that.. once a tract of land is identified, that all owners of the property may not want to sell. L N: Have you identified all the suitable potential and how did you reach the conclusion that these 4 sites others and why is the testing information important? 9 sites in Orange are better than SWER: Susan Doverbarger stated that the sites were identified based on selection criteria developed under the direction of the consultant. Those criteria took into account government restrictions and land size. The minimal range for size was 300 - 500 acres. She has wondered if they should go back and take another look. Was there something they had missed? She stated she does not know if they have identified all the suitable potential sites. She noted that the only site that the committee has agreed upon unanimously did not appear on the original list of sites that came out of the screening process. At their November meeting the committee voted site by site without knowing how each other was going to vote. What they decided on were sites OC9 and OC17. At that point they decided to go back and vote again site by site. At that point OC2 and OC11 went back on the list by a very narrow margin. At the February meeting, they decided they wanted to take another vote. At this time they added OC3 and removed OC9, OC11 and OC2. At the end of that meeting they decided to drill on two sites, OC3 and OC17 with OC17 being a unanimous vote. They convened in March and was told that OC3 was not an option and at that point they reconsidered their original charge to put forth more than one site for geotechnical drilling. One committee member was absent. They took a 6-5 vote to add OC2, OC9, and OC11. If that committee member had been present that motion would not have passed. Testing information was covered by Mr. Joyce and Mr. Scarlett. Mr. Mann noted that they think they have identified all the suitable potential sites. QUESTION: The LSSC has obviously divided along north/south lines. When you get 6-5 votes on a committee like this, which is supposed to be objectively selecting a landfill site, it is evident that the decision. has become political -- not objective. This means that 6 people in Orange County will be making an important recommendation that will have serious consequences for every citizen. Isn't this an indication that we need to reexamine the process? ANSWER: Mr. Mann noted that this has been a tough decision. They have been following this concept of majority rules and there have been a number of questions that were close but they have never felt that because it is a 6-5 vote, that they should negate that vote. ADDITIONAL OIIESTIONS AND ANSWERS Commissioner Gordon stated that she requested a report in June which would take the original site selection criteria and justify each criteria and explain how the final eliminations were made as well as which sites were retained at each stage and why. She would like complete details including any available records on this entire process. She thinks she heard the committee say they couldn't do this because it was a group process. She thought that there would be a report from the committee that would go over some of these details. She emphasized that it would be helpful if she had a report listing the advantages and disadvantages of each site and reasons for voting for or against a site. Also, she would like a report of what criteria they feel is most important and how that criteria eliminated the sites that were eliminated other sites were kept on the list. Mr. Mann noted that there is a lot of documentation. There is a st'~and a map that was used in applying the criteria. There is a chart that shows how the ranking criteria was applied to each site. Dan VanderMeer stated that he feels these. are important items that need to be addressed by the LSSC. However, it was not his understanding that they were to provide anyone with a written report of their recommendations at this point in the process. Every meeting was held in open session. Notes, minutes and reports were developed from these meetings. The committee worked together as a group and not north/south. They reached a point several months ago when they felt they had made the very best recommendations to the elected officials. They are now being asked to justify the process and justify specific decisions related to the process. He agreed that they should answer the questions but not to give a written report. A better way to do this is to take a look at the written record. Mr. Mann noted that throughout the process they developed interim reports that are available. Commissioner Insko questioned how difficult it would be to pull together information showing site by site the factors considered by the committee. It would be helpful to her to have the sites listed with information on the factors that were taken into consideration which led to their decision to select that particular site. Dan indicated that he would provide a one page summary on each site showing objective and subjective data. Commissioner Gordon emphasized she is not critical of the process but she needs additional information to understand the process that was used in the site selection. Mr. Mann noted. that this committee was appointed by the LOG and has been responding to the LOG. They are not through with the process. Their charge in to give them a final report which will give them the conclusion of their study. In answer to a question about the guarantee they can give to landowners that the subcontractors employed to do the testing will exercise the greatest possible caution to make sure the land is disturbed to the least possible extent, Mr. Joyce stated that for the type of work being performed, they will be using the highest quality standards of care and will be in compliance with all of the requirements and laws including state and county. He explained the process that will be used in the drilling and exploratory procedure. Commissioner Insko asked if it was mandatory to do the trenches and pits in addition to the borings. Mr. Joyce stated that it is not mandatory to do that type of work but that it is important to understand the degree of reliability of doing non-invasive testings or geophysical work versus the reliability of the type of work they have proposed. In his opinion, invasive testing is much more reliable than the geophysical work as Mr. Scarlett explained earlier. 11 '°"' Chair Carey indicated that the next issue for the Board of County `Commissioners to decide is the type of testing and approval of that testing. He asked if they would do fewer borings if they did the geophysical work first. Mr. Joyce noted that they proposed bore holes and test pits, not the geophysical work. Mr. Scarlett stated that plans to test these four sites is the minimum level of effort that will give sufficient information to use in a decision-making process. All the test pits and bore holes will be spread widely on the acreage. The holes per acre is a big ratio of acreage per single bore hole. The bore holes are so spread out and all in specific areas which are targeted to soil changes and things like that from maps that already exist. This level of effort is nowhere near what happens when a site is being characterized as a site to engineer for a landfill. A tremendous amount of work must be done at that time. At that point they can significantly reduce the bore holes and trenches by using geophysical techniques. Geophysics are brought in when characterizing a single site to engineer it for a landfill. Chair Carey asked if bore holes and geophysical testing would increase the reliability of the information enough to preclude the necessity of the trenches. Mr. Joyce stated that geophysical work in combination with bore hole testing would increase the reliability of the data but would not eliminate the need for test pits. They would not use. any less holes because they are already using the minimum amount of holes now to characterize a site. One of the reasons for the test pits is to remove soil materials in sufficient quantities to take to a laboratory and do an analysis on the soil so they could determine the properties of the soil. Mr. Fairbault stated that they have worked very hard on the process of siting a landfill. He noted that he will be glad to give them a report on his reasons for the selection of these four potential sites. With no further comments, Chair Carey adjourned the meeting at 10:30. The next regular meeting will be held on October 5, 1992 at 7:30 in the Courtroom at the Old Courthouse in Hillsborough, North Carolina. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk