Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19931014553 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN AND CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL OCTOBER 14, 1993 The Orange County Board of Commissioners, Carrboro Board of Aldermen, Chapel Hill Town Council and the Hillsborough Town Commissioners met in joint session on Thursday, October 14, 1993 at 7:30 p.m. in the OWASA Community Room in Carrboro, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioners Alice M. Gordon, Stephen H. Halkiotis, Verla C. Insko (arrived at 8:30) and Don Willhoit. CARRBORO ALDERMEN PRESENT: Jay Bryan, Tom Gurganus, and Randy Marshall CHAPEL HILL COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Kenneth Broun, Joyce Brown, Joseph Capowski, Mark Chilton and Barbara Powell HILLSBOROUGH CO_731YSSIONERS PRESENT: Mayor Horace Johnson, Evelyn Lloyd, Allen L. Lloyd and Robert Rose A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Carey welcomed everyone to the meeting. B. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Carey dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge. C. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING 1. COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY STRATEGY FOR ORANGE COUNTY Housing and Community Development Director Tara Fikes presented for the purpose of receiving public comments the draft Comprehensive Housinc, Affordability Strategy for Orange County. In summary, the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) is a five year comprehensive planning document that identifies the overall housing needs in the County and outlines a five-year strategy as well as a one year plan to address those needs. The CHAS is a planning document which guides future planning and implementation of housing programs in Orange county. it is not an application for funding, nor does it commit any local funds for housing programs. Any jurisdiction participating in the Federal Community Development Block Grant Program (Chapel Hill) and/or the Federal HOME Investment Partnership Program (Orange County including the Towns) must have an approved CHAS. The Public Hearing was open to receive comments. Adele Thomas stated she feels it is important to make an assessment of how much money will be available and then to determine how much the County and the Towns can afford. Included in this should be a determination of whether the elderly should be kept in their homes or whether the homeless should be moved into houses. The CDBG will provide some money for rehabilitation but nearly not enough. She feels that it needs to be decided if this is the number one priority. She does not feel it disgraceful to have a privy in the back yard if it is kept clean. There are people who cannot afford to buy homes of their own and a determination needs to be made as to whether or not 554 to help those citizens. Catherine Dickman, representing the orange County Affordable Housir4 Coalition, stated four priorities she feels should be considered befc. building new housing for low and moderate income purchase: (1) improved emergency housing for families and children, (2) transitional housing for women and families, (3) transitional housing for men, and (4) decent affordable rental housing She stated that there are people on the streets with no place to go. She feels that a holistic approach is needed. She stated that a single person with two children working at minimum wage must work 58 hours a week to bring her/him up to the poverty level. The University needs to provide more student housing so that housing is available for people who need it. Tara Fikes stated that comments may be made through November 15, 1993. At the end of this period, the final CHAS document must be approved by all governing boards prior to December 31, 1993. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. FURTHER COMMENTS WILL BE RECEIVED THROUGH NOVEMBER 15, 1993. D• ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING 1. AMERICAN STONE QUARRY - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Planner Mary Willis stated that in 1990, Orange County adopted an Environmental Impact Ordinance. That Ordinance requires the preparation o:" an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for developments which meets tf criteria as outlined in the Ordinance. One of the criteria is the need fc a mining permit from the State of North Carolina. American Stone Quarry proposes to modify and expand its existing operation on NC Highway 54 and Bethel--Hickory Grove Church Road. The proposed expansion involves: (1) Re- alignment of Bethel-Hickory Grove Church Road to the east of the existing quarry; (2) relocation of the existing asphalt plant to the east of the re- alignment of Bethel-Hickory Grove Church Road; (3) realignment of a waterway on the northwest border of the quarry site; and (4) the eastward expansion of mining activities. The property, is located in the Rural Buffer zoning district and University Lake Watershed. The existing quarry is designated as an Extractive Use in the JPA Land Use Plan. Expansion of the Extractive Use designation to include the area proposed for the quarry expansion requires approval of an amendment to the JPA Land Use Plan. Amendments to the JPA Land Use Plan require approval of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Orange County. An amendment to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan was presented at a JPA public hearing on October 10, 1991. Concern with potential environmental impacts was raised during the public hearing process. The applicants chose to prepare and submit the EIS prior to submittal of the Special Use Permit so that more information would be available at the time of the decision on the Land Use Plan amendment. The EIS is for information only. There is no decision to be made solely on the information in the EIS. Mary Willis summarized the proposal that the impact statement is based on. Four parts of the proposal were addressed in the EIS. They are listed below: (1) the realignment of Bethel-Hickory Grove Church Road, (2) the relocation of the existing asphalt plant to the east or Bethel-Hickory Grove Church Road, 555 (3) the realignment ofa waterway, and (4) the expansion of the mining activity to the east. Mary Willis indicated that the EIS was distributed for comments through the North Carolina Clearinghouse. Comments received from the NC Department of Transportation and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission.are included in the agenda abstract. In answer to a question from Mr. Danziger about the population figures used in the EIS, Ms. Willis stated that these figures were derived from using a combination of the 1990 census data and figures that are currently in the Land Use Plan which are based on the 1980 census. Nancy Horn, representing W.MA Group for Martin Marietta Aggregates, showed on a map the present quarry and the old pit which is the OWASA Reservoir and the asphalt plant. She explained the process they followed in doing the EIS. They first contacted the Orange County Planning Board and then proceeded with data collection which is contained in the document. Alan Lineberry, Vice-President with Nello-leer Company, explained that an asphalt plant takes crushed stone and mixes it together with other materials to make a material used in asphalt pavement. About 95; of asphalt paving material is crushed stone with only 4-6% asphalt. They receive four to six loads of asphalt a week and it is stored on site. This plant is a 2- 1/2 batch plant. The plan is to expand to a 4-1/2 batch plant. The reason for expansion is efficiency. They have had no problems with pollution. He explained that they put a concrete containment area around the storage tanks which hold up to 56,000 gallons. In answer to a question from commissioner Halkiotis, Mr. Battan from ,Martin Marietta stated that they visited one of the properties in the immediate area which they felt had the most damage. Upon examining the well they found that there was a rupture in the bladder of the holding tank in the well. In another case, they hired a structural engineer who found that the structural damage was caused by the house being built partially on solid ground and partially on filldirt which caused the house to settle. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR OPEN FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS. Erwin M. Danziger made reference to a letter dated October 10, 1993 sent to the county Commissioners in which he asked that the Board deny the request from Martin Marietta for an amendment to the JPA Land Use Plan.... He then read a statement.which is summarized below. Both the letter and statement is in the Permanent Agenda File in the Clerk's office and shall be made a part of these minutes by reference. Mr. Danziger's comments primarily address the EIS prepared by Martin Marietta. He made five points. (1) The undated EIS document refers in several places to a four part agreement and to an agreement between OWASA and Nello Teer which allows the existing, hazardous and unsafe asphalt plant to operate on OWASA owned land. He asked that the Board get copies of these agreements. He feels that the information in the EIS is outdated. (2) Mr. Danziger feels that statements in the EIS dealing with socioeconomic impacts are clearly biased, half truths and what he might characterize as misrepresentations. He gave several examples of this in his letter. He noted that the Tax Assessor has indicated that OWASA does not pay taxes on the land it owns and that only "leasehold improvements" are taxed. As a result of this proposal 556 the county could lose an additional 136 acres to OWASA. (3) Throughout the EIS, it is reported that OWASA has made or will maY critical inspection of the water leaving the Quarry and Aspha operations. He fears that without impugning the dedicated staff ar- OWASA it Pay be more difficult to find a minute amount of some hazardous trace element by an employee whose management. is, contractually obligated to help get these approvals. (4) He asked that the Board please note the careful wording and phrasing throughout the EIS regarding the asphalt plant. He made reference to specific sections dealing with the 401 water quality certification, and air quality measures. He emphasized that OWASA itself prohibits any asphalt, concrete, or ready mix plants under the proposed lease betT,:aen OWASA and American Stone dated May 10, 1990.. He noted that the document titled "Spill Prevention and Counter Measures Plan" was not done on site but by a professional engineer in Indiana. (5) On the question of rare and protected species, Mr. Danziger noted t'.;at the document presumes some species to be extinct because a literature search did not identify any records or names of "threatened or endangered spe.:ies in the vicinity of the proposed project. The information has never been verified by actual field trips. Mr. Danziger feels there are three options that were not discussed in the EIS: (1) close the quarry and asphalt plant now and if OWASA really needs more storage, buy the hole that now exists, (2) close the quarry in 15 years when the stone runs out and the asphalt plant after upgrading in 7 years when. the lease ends or (3) permit a quarry operation somewhere in Orange County bi outside of any watershed protected areas. Allan Spalt noted that the purpose of an EIS is to inform decision makers and the public about all reasonable alternatives and all potential impacts in order to promote sound decision making. An EIS does not require that the most environmentally sound decision is made. He feels that the proposal being made is probably, in the long run, good for Orange County. However, in the short run there is a lot of people living in that area and the environmental impacts .need to be considered in any decision that is made. He feels that if the quarry is such a great long run benefit to the County it should be worth it to be sure it does not have real serious impacts on the environment or the people living in that area while this plant is operating. He does not feel the document helps in making these kinds of. decisions for the short run because it does not. consider all potential impacts. This EIS was done in the office and the wetlands issue needs to be addressed fairly. The language that is used in the EIS applies that things will be improved. This is not starting out with a fair attitude. It is a document that set out to prove conclusions that had already been reached rather than one that is intended to inform the public and decision makers about all reasonable alternatives and potential impacts in order to promote sound decision making. That is why it is a flawed EIS. Two of the main issues is that this is in the watershed. If the asphalt plant was not already there, this would not be under consideration. The second issue is that even though this is to be a new state-of-the-art asphalt plant which is more energy efficient, it will use the same energy as before This means the plant is going to be twice as large. One of the most serioL flaws in the EIS is the potential for a spill and the traffic generated by enlarging the asphalt plant. He feels this should be considered elsewhere. 557 He made reference to a letter from Campw:Dresser and McKee to QWASA in 1988 which talks about the plant. They did not recommend above ground storage of ;petroleum based products in the water supply watershed. The letter states that because the existing plant drains into the quarry reservoir it could be contained. Mr. Spalt explained that in the new configuration, it is designed to drain into Phil's Creek which goes into University Lake. He make reference to page 3-25 about noise monitoring and noted that many people Iave indicated that noise is an issue. They did some noise monitoring and some of it does not make sense and he gave examples. He feels that there was not a serious investigation into the noise problems that real people encounter. One aspect of an EIS is the socioeconomic aspects. While this may have great socioeconomic benefits for the community, it has v(--:ry serious socioeconomic consequences for the nearby residences. Most of the language in the EIS is "it is expected", "normally", "usually", "as a general rule", etc. -There has been a long history of mining on location and therefore one would expect this EIS to be more specific. He asked that the elected officials ask enough questions so that the final document will constitute a final impact statement. He feels that the asphalt plant constitutes a real danger to the watershed and is inappropriate in a water supply watershed and should be separated from this proposal and located elsewhere. Jennifer Shean who lives on Bethel-Hickory Grove Church Road stated she has a water problem. She once supplied three houses with water and now cannot .supply enough for one. They can't drink the water or use it to wash clothes. She must change the filter at least twice a day. When there is blasting, pictures fall from the walls. She asked that something be done. :10TE: Chair Carey was excused from the meeting. Vice-Chair Stephen Halkiotis chaired the reminder of the meeting. Alfred C. Perry owns property adjacent to the stone quarry. He noted that he did not receive any information about this meeting and asked that he be informed of any further meetings. He has had a good working relationship with American Stone. He asked that any maps used in making a presentation be prepared on paper so that those in the audience can participate. If the road is changed, it will directly affect his property. It is a fact that they get vibration from the blasting. American stone came out to._6heck it with their own.people and their own instruments. During blasting, his trailers rock and his tenants complain about it. He is interested in the long-range plan for the property in that area. Dexter Rogers lives one fourth mile from American Stone. He stated that the blasting has caused structural damage to his house. The noise from the trucks is terrible. Melvin Perry stated that American Stone has sent people out to measure the blasting. He does not want his life or property destroyed. Last Wednesday, there was a tremendous blast. He understands that the quarry provides jobs for people but he does not want their business to destroy his life or the lives of his children. Mary Willis stated that there is no further action on the EIS at this point. The Land Use Plan amendment hearing will be scheduled at a later point, early in 1994, and if that is approved a Special Use Permit hearing would be scheduled. At that time, specific conditions would address the concerns raised at this public hearing. Allan Spalt asked for information on who the owner of the property ii, question is and OWASA's role in this process including contracts, etc. He asked what would happen if the board agreed that the document is inadequate. Mary Willis stated that to this point nothing has been required from the applicants. The EIS would be required with the submittal of the Special Use Permit. If there were questions, deficiencies or issues raised through the information in.the EIS, the Board would have the option of delaying a decision on a special use Permit in order to get any resolution to any issues that were raised at the Public Hearing for the Special Use Permit including the EIS. In answer to a question from Joyce Brown, Mary Willis stated that the EIS is not a requirement of the Joint Planning Agreement. Joyce Brown made reference to the questions and concerns brought forward and indicated that she would like to have those questions answered. In answer to a question from commissioner Willhoit on why this public hearing was scheduled, Mary Willis stated that at the time the public hearing was held on the Land Use Plan amendment, there were concerns raised regarding the potential environmental impacts with an expansion. In an attempt to address that more broadly, the applicant volunteered to go ahead and do the EIS. Barbara Powell asked about the concerns that were heard tonight. Mar. Willis stated that the meeting tonight was for information gathering. Thel is no decision to be made. In terms of addressing the specific comments, they will be considered in terms of the Special Use Permit. Commissioner Gordon made reference to the special Use Permit process and questioned if these comments are going to be considered as findings and if so if all the testimony should have been sworn. NOTE: Commissioner Insko was present for the remainder of the meeting. Mary Willis noted that if this had been a public hearing for the Special Use Permit that everyone would have been sworn in from the. very beginning. If an amendment is approved, the minutes from this meeting and all documents will be presented as part of the evidence at a Special Use Permit hearing. Geoffrey Gledhill clarified that if the Board intends to rely on the statements made by the people here tonight in the context of the Special Use Permit public hearing, those comments probably need to be made at that public hearing. Ken Broun stated that the only action the Chapel Hill Town Council will make will be in regard to the Land Use Amendment. At that point, they will take into account the concerns expressed this evening with regard to the El- and at that point expect the applicant to answer the questions and address ti, concerns. 559 Marvin Collins stated that-this involves not only an amendment to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan which would require all three governing '1)oards but it involves an amendment to the Orange County Comprehensive Plan which involves only the County Commissioners. All three governing boards must vote in the affirmative for the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan to be amended. If any governing board says no, the process stops. If it does receive an affirmative vote, it moves to the process involving only Orange County Commissioners. Mr. Danziger stated he hopes that the towns will stop this action before it gets to the county and the Special Use Permit process. He presented a copy of the "Memorandum of Understanding" between the four parties and he asked Nello Teer to make available to this board a copy of their agreement between OWASA and Nello Teer. E. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to be considered, Vice-Chair Halkiotis adjourned the meeting at 9:20. The next regular meeting of the Board will be held on Tuesday, October 19 at 7:30 p.m. at the OWASA Community Room, Carrboro, North Carolina. Moses Carey Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk , Jr., Chair