HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19970522.-
1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
2 CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN
3 CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
4 HILLSBOROUGH BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5
6 SOLID WASTE PLAN
7 PUBLIC HEARING
8 MAY 22, 1997
9
0 MINUTES
1
2 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the governing boards of Chapel Hill, Carrboro
3 and Hillsborough met for a Public Hearing on the proposed Solid Waste Plan on May 22, 1997 at
4 7:00 p.m. at A.L. Stanback Middle School, 3700 Highway 86 South, Hillsborough, North Carolina.
5
6 COUNTY COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair William L. Crowther, and members
7 Moses Carey, Jr., Margaret W. Brown, Alice M. Gordon and Stephen H. Halkiotis
8
9 COUNTY COMMISSIONER MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
0
1 CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Members Julie Andresen, Mark Chilton,
2 Edith Wiggins, Joyce Brown, Pat Evans, Richard Franck, Joseph Capowski, and Lee Pavao
3
4 CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Mayor Rosemary Waldorf
5
6 CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Michael Nelson, and
7 members Jacquelyn Gist, Diana McDuffie, Hilliard Caldwell, and Alex Zaffron.
8
9 CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Hank Anderson, and Jay
0 Bryan.
2 HILLSBOROUGH TOWN COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Member Evelyn Lloyd
3
4 HILLSBOROUGH TOWN COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Mayor Horace Johnson, and
5 members Kenneth Chavious, Richard Simpson, Catherine Martin and Remus Smith
6
7 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER; Council member and Chair of the Landfill Owner's Group
8 Richard Franck convened the meeting at 7:10 p.m. He requested that Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste
9 Director, give a brief presentation on the Solid Waste Plan.
0
1 SOLID WASTE PLAN UPDATE: Gayle Wilson stated that the purpose this Public hearing was
2 twofold. The first intention is to satisfy the State requirement of public participation in the state-
3 required Solid Waste Plan. The second intention is to provided a forum for open discussion of the
4 Landfill Owners Group's conceptual solid waste plan which has resulted from the integrated plan
5 study conducted for the Owners Group from August 1994 through May 1996. He reported that
6 Orange County has reduced the amount of solid waste and construction as well as demolition
7 waste landfilled since the first public recycling programs were begun in 1988 by about 25% per
2
1 person. Additional reduction to meet the 50% goal by 2006 would require improvements in
2 recycling and waste prevention programs such as those described in the plan framework. A
3 means of paying for increased waste reduction programs would also have to be determined. The
4 Owners Group has adopted a goal of reducing solid waste landfilled per capita by 33% by 2001
5 and 50% by 2006. They also have the framework of a plan for meeting those waste reduction
6 goals. The waste reduction plan framework for mixed solid waste includes the following elements:
7
8 • Waste Prevention: This would include public education, differential landfill fees, non-economic
9 incentives, mandatory recycling and volume-based fees.
0 Collection: Urban areas would be served by universal recycling collection for residential,
1 commercial and apartments as well as for commercial recycling in unincorporated areas. For
2 the remainder of the unincorporated areas curbside recycling in relatively densely settled
3 subdivisions would continue. The current system of sanitation sites for solid waste and
4 recycling collection would also continue. He mentioned that universal commercial recycling
5 does not currently exist. It would be the biggest single new collection expense and also have
6 the greatest potential for increasing recycling. Solid waste collection would continue to be
7 under local government control.
8 Processina: If the amount and types of recyclables is increased significantly to reach the 50%
9 goal, then Orange County would need a processing facility to sort out the recyclables and
0 make them market-ready. Sorting and processing are especially important if we are ever to
1 achieve along-term stable market for mixed paper.
2 • Construction and demolition waste: Construction waste makes up approximately one-third of
3 the material that is landfilled. There is enormous potential in reducing the amount of
4 construction waste through recycling. The Owner's Group is recommending a 4% reduction
5 goal in this area by 2001. It will be necessary to open a sorting facility if the goal of 50%
6 reduction is to be reached by 2006.
7 • Financing_ Saving landfill space and conserving resources represent a significant financial
8 expense. Both the recycling and education programs are costly. These costs will likely be paid
9 by a combination of public and private funds. Private financing sources include tipping fees
0 and user fees paid by private waste haulers. The Owners Group is also recommending that
1 the materials recovery facility, and possibly a construction waste recovery facility be
2 constructed and operated by a private company under contract to Orange County. Possible
3 public financing sources include tipping fees paid by local governments, availability fees
4 assessed to County residents, and user fees paid either directly by County residents or by local
5 governments on behalf of their residents. This must be decided by local governments. If, as
6 expected, Orange County government assumes control of solid waste recycling and waste
7 reduction activities and responsibility for implementing the approved plan, the County
8 government would have primary responsibility for making these decisions. Municipal
9 governments would have a voice in these decisions through the solid waste advisory
0 committee. Municipal government would also retain the authority to make funding decisions
1 with regards to solid waste collection.
2
3 QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS:
4
5 B.B. Olive, a resident of Mount Sinai Road, Chapel Hill stated that the Landfill Owners
6 Group needs the public to understand and support the Solid Waste Plan. They also need to
7 satisfy the legal requirement to hold this Public Hearing. He made a request that the phrase
3
1 "waste collected" be used in place of "landfilled" and that staff analyze exactly how much of that
2 material is destined to be buried in the ground. He pointed out that the State of North Carolina has
3 identified their first priority as the reduction of waste at its source, and their second priority as the
4 recycling of collected materials. The sixth (6th) priority on the State list is disposing of material in
5 the landfill. The same General Statute indicates that local officials are encouraged to research
6 innovative solutions to this problem. He requested that a resolution be adopted that the landfill
7 would be used only as a last resort. He also requested that recycling options be analyzed. He
8 suggested that one possibility would be to resolve to get out of the landfill business and get into
9 the recycling business. He asked that landfilling waste be our lowest priority. A copy of his
0 comments, in their entirely, are in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office.
1
2 Dr. Ron Hass, of Overland Drive, Chapel Hill also mentioned that the NC Legislature has
3 given landfills the lowest priority as a means of handling solid waste. He stated that he was an
4 expert in the field of analyzing data for incinerator permit applications. His research shows that
5 incinerators are not a more serious source of air pollution than landfills. He felt that because of the
6 rapidly changing technology it would be preferable to have an independent contractor handle the
7 disposal of our trash. His comments in their entirely are in the permanent agenda file in the
8 Clerk's office
9
0 Mr. Roger Barr, of Oak Hill Road, Chapel Hill asked about the method of record keeping
1 being employed by the Owners Group. He asked that the State plan be followed, including the
2 use of their starting date. He also requested that the recycling of coal ash be included in Orange
3 County's calculations, as the State has done. He mentioned that although ash is no longer
4 recycled in our landfill, there has been no corresponding credit to Orange County citizens. A copy
5 of his comments are in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office.
6
7 Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, an employee of the North Carolina Department of Natural Resource,
8 discussed current EPA regulations. He mentioned that the gas emissions from landfills contribute
9 significantly to air pollution. Those emissions have the potential to cause cancer due to off-site
0 migration. They also contribute to global warming. He suggested that the non-regulatory
1 program that the EPA oversees is a good program and should be considered for our landfill.
2
3 Richard Perzley, of North Hawick Court, Chapel Hill mentioned that as a pediatrician his
4 concern is in regard to the medical hazards associated with gas emissions from the landfill. He
5 mentioned two studies of which he is aware. In one of them the risk of cancer was greatly
6 increased for residents within 4 kilometers of the site and the other study showed an elevated risk
7 of low birth weight. He stated that this is not just a noisy nuisance. It is a serious health hazard.
8 He asked that the Owner's Group take into account the need to manage gas emissions from
9 landfill sites.
0
1 Dave Laudicina, of Wood Dock Lane, Hillsborough, commented that there appeared to be
2 no relationship between the landfill search and the plan being suggested by the Owner's Group.
3 He commented that it was time to do the right thing. He asked the elected officials to consider
4 building the smallest possible landfill and focus on reducing and recycling. He submitted petitions
5 against siting the landfill at either Site 17 or Site 13.
6
4
1 Gary Carver, of Blackwood Mountain Road, Chapel Hill, voiced strong support for reducing,
2 and recycling. He felt that the Owners Group only considered the landfill options even though that
3 is the least preferred option according to the State. He asked that the Owner's Group consider
4 other options.
5
6 Debbie Bettis, Overlook Point, Chapel Hill, spoke as a community activist. She mentioned
7 that although the Commissioners have the right to condemn land she very strongly hoped that
8 they would not condemn the Site #17. This is not vacant land. There are homeowners on this
9 land who have lived here all of their lives.
0
1 Tom Sorrell, of Shadylawn Road, Chapel Hill, requested that the Owners Group and
2 elected officials look at alternatives. He felt that the decision had already been made and that the
3 Public Hearing was only a formality. He was disappointed that UNC was not represented at the
4 Public Hearing.
5
6 Barry Kendell, of Ridgecrest Drive, Chapel Hill, stated that incineration, and other
7 alternatives, needed to be more fully considered. He asked the Owners Group and elected
8 officials to consider alternatives to the landfill.
9
0 Whitney MacDonald, of Green Hills Road, Chapel Hill and a teacher at Waldorf Emerson,
1 mentioned that there is a beautiful, and successful, school facility as well as 500 families homes
2 situated within sight of this proposed landfill. A community farm exists within 100 yards and within
3 50 yards is an organic farm.
4
5 Cecil Griffin, of Manor Drive, Chapel Hill, asked that Orange County consider requesting
6 the Legislature to allow deposit collection on glass, plastic and cans sold in the County. He
7 mentioned that in Orange County, California, mandatory recycling was instituted and a 70%
8 reduction was realized overnight. He lives near the proposed landfill site and was promised that
9 there would not be another landfill sited in this area.
0
1 Laura Shmania, of Wild Turkey Trail Road, Chapel Hill, spoke as an administrator at
2 Waldorf Emerson. She stated that siting the landfill near this school and neighborhood would
3 create a disastrous situation for the entire area.
4
5 Don Willhoit, former County Commissioner and L.O.G. member, requested that the
6 Owner's Group establish a Home Page so that documents would be readily available to citizens.
7 He commented that convenience centers are not particularly convenient for many people. He
8 asked that the Universal collection center be carefully considered. He asked if the Owners Group
9 could site a successful example of their plan anywhere in the Country. He suggested that if they
0 could not site such an example, that they institute a pilot study for multifamily recycling. He offered
1 the use of the Old Well Community for this study. He also requested that the life cycle analysis be
2 included when determining the cost of the landfill.
3
4 Betty Maultsby stated that it was unfortunate that disposal had been left off the chart.
5 Solid waste collection needs to be part of the plan but she felt that the collection methods were
6 being voted on out of context.
7
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
Judy Nunn, Eubanks Road, is a resident of this area and has lived with the devaluation of
her land for many years. She requested that this not happen again to her, or anyone else's, land
in the future.
Katie Riley, a local resident, asked that the landfill not be considered for this site. She also
mentioned that it was a likely possibility that the neighbors would take legal action.
Ellen Perry, Bim Street, Carrboro, was unable to attend the meeting but requested that a
note she drafted be included in the record. She was concerned about how recycling would be
enforced if it was made mandatory. She supports the plan but is concerned about the volume of
materials that would result. A copy of her comments, in their entirety, are in the permanent
agenda file, in the Clerk's office.
Mayor Nelson, asked if there was a reduction in staffing as a result of the reduction in ash
being disposed of in the landfill. He was informed that there had not been a reduction in staffing.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. The next Board of
Commissioners meeting will be held on Thursday, May 27th at 7:30 p.m. Superior Courtroom,
Hillsborough, North Carolina.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk