HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-18-2008 - Transfer 1ORANGE COUNTT'
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 18, 2008
Action Agenda
Item No.
SUBJECT: Consideration of Input from Public Comment Meeting and Direction on Next
Steps towards Final Site Selection
17, 5 UNIT V IT4 a3
County Manager's Office
Solid Waste Department
ATTACHMENT(S):
Exhibit 1— Power Point Presentation
(November 17 Public Comment Meeting)
Exhibit 2 - Action Items and Tentative
Timeline for Development of a Transfer
Station Post-Site Selection
Exhibit 3 — Draft Minutes (October 21,
2008)
PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laura Blackmon, County Manager, 245-
2306
Gwen Harvey, Assistant Manager, 245-
2307
Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Director,
968-2285
PURPOSE:
To debrief and discuss input from Public Comment Meeting and provide direction and feedback
on next steps to final selection of a site for a County Waste Transfer Station
BACKGROUND:
At its Transfer Station Work Session on October 21, 2008, the BOCC decided on three
candidate sites to take forward to the next stage of public scrutiny and participation. The sites
are:
Site 056 — 0.7 miles west of Orange Grove Road on NC 64 (West 64, LLC))
Site 759 — 0.3 miles west of Orange Grove Road on NC 54 (OWASA)
Site 779 —1.0 mile west of Orange Grove Road on NC 54 (Warren & Dodson)
The BOCC also called for a public comment meeting to be held before its November Work
Session to allow for the presentation of information from Olver, Inc. and receipt of input and
feedback from the community. The Public Comment Meeting was held on Monday, November
17 at the McDougle Middle School.
Exhibit 1 is a copy of the PowerPoint presentation delivered at the Public Comment Meeting,
including tentative timeline for a BOCC decision on a final site at its regular meeting on
December 11, 2008.
Exhibit 2 is a summary document on action steps and tentative timeline associated with the
actual development of a Waste Transfer Station in Orange County once a final site is
selected.
Exhibit 3 is the draft minutes from the County Clerk for the Transfer Station Work Session,
October 21, 2008.
The BOCC will debrief and discuss the public comment proceedings from November 17 and
provide additional feedback and direction to County Management and Olver, Inc. Olver, Inc. will
take the comments, findings and requests for information and conduct further review and
analysis. They will then prepare a Waste Transfer Station Site Recommendation for decision by
the BOCC at its regular meeting on December 11, 2008. The intention is the BOCC would
approve a site on December 11, 2008 and instruct County Management and Olver, Inc. to begin
purchase negotiations for development of the Waste Transfer Station.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no direct financial impact associated with the Board discussion of the Public Comment
Meeting and subsequent direction to County management and Olver, Inc. There will likely be
substantial costs to the County (Solid Waste Enterprise Fund) in the overall land acquisition,
design and development of a selected site and the permitting and construction of the actual
facility along with any ancillary features the BOCC may authorize.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
The Manager recommends the Board provide direction and feedback to County Management
and Consultants so that a site recommendation can be developed and presented for decision at
the meeting on December 11, 2008.
P�
•
•
•
1
•
1�
r
M,
W
•
1
9
AW
i2.
! i fi
Y�
f
�l
co
U)
• •
CL
1 1
cn
UJ
•
C\l cn
•
'
CD 0
cu
•
• . 1 / 0
• _.
0
co C/) C-
a) C/) C-)
Co
CL
0
U) cn E
C: cn
a)
C)
• 1
�r
•
c
• Y
13
Fl
•
1
I,
2��
i�.fNfrc
•
1
I
j
li
..........
I
•
•
Is
lw
17
•
•
•
•
1r1
f
•
It
I-
271C
•
J
11
z 2 t"
t
9
`C
•
•
OR
r�
� X
cu
i
i t "y
r
`i3
t
r .
C
sx
d
s
f S)h
f>
cu
Y
k
7 i
t•
Y
f
>N.
I
i
T
N
0
r
G
cu
F }
•
•
Is
lw
17
•
•
•
•
1r1
f
•
It
I-
271C
•
J
11
z 2 t"
t
9
`C
•
•
OR
r�
i
U
x::".54.
�•J
0��
•
No
I PIN
I low
n
•
,.
N N
•
II
n
•
•
0
■
1
r
%FoJ
YA
•
•
•
mm
•
m
M,
19
1
t1
r
.
ON
El
�•o
W
4 nd'
t �S
r. >vr
I
»«
�.
�
I
�
\
cu
--R,V
� \
� \
� \
� \
CU
� \
CL
-
- «
�
\
�
|
\
�
� \
. . . . . . . . . .
73
\
As tak
� \
.
�
I
»«
�.
�
I
11
I
�n
c / {:
F�
F
x�
C
mo
Co
CU
...........
N
}
J ir. � ■
i,
4-0
CU
vj
a
■-
T
i � ) ■ O
.®
i� 4-+
AM
Oii
1 iI
t�! �
s s'
4
co
Ito
1
•
1;
•
1
1
1
1
1.
co
c:
cu
= —
1
0
-c:
cn
cn
-c:
•
CU
X
a)
•
A.-a
W
cn
LU
•
•
■
U)
a)
v
•
•
c
L-
0
U
m
U.
•
•
A
�
M
•
•
Aw
•
•
T
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
7a$ Y,.
} �a
S�y:
H
3V
�Y
d rt}
O
s
QL
x�xY
CU
e��
Y
W
Y
�t
a @7
i
b 4
cu
®
/ A
jqt
�
mss/
4-4
t
CU
f<
�
■ �
i'
�i
i
❑
•
•
■
U)
a)
v
•
•
c
L-
0
U
m
U.
•
•
A
�
M
•
•
Aw
•
•
T
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
7a$ Y,.
} �a
S�y:
t
U
r
k
1*1
Am
1
•
•
1._
•
s
•
am
•
Fe!
l
1
1
t
on
•
•
•
•
ii
•
1
9
•
•
•
0
�J
Foo
0
•
•
1
/
/
•
1
EM
•
1
•
V�
/
•
/
•
r,
N
00
a)
C�
Y_
o
• •
cu
r CU
0 4-j -F-j
E La.)
L. L. cn a)
0 M W ,
r
a • CU
CD
0
4-4
• • 4-a
4-1 c a)
• • a) >
a) CU 'a) L.
-t L. 4- E
CU 0 a) a) r C, cn
•
• 0 L— cn 0-
cn cn - E L.
C: > • m c • ' •
1
■ 13 cn
j�
I
K*1
1
W'l
AO
5
0
LI
•
VY
■
•
•
•
•
•
cu
a)
•
00
•
C:
cu
a)
>1 a)
C:
E cn
0 4-1
o 0
cl
CO U-
•
1
•.
— (m
Co U •C:
c
i
a)
•
1�11'
m
s'E
3
1
•
3
4S:'
SY„`;
•
Aff
•
PIPE-
r-
•
M
•
mold�
J
•
•
•
•
•
•
LL,J
•
•
cu
Q.
•
cu
•
/ .
CU
•
I--#
cu
E 4—'
•
cu
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
of
�l�Y
f
t
•
mold�
J
•
•
•
•
•
•
LL,J
•
•
cu
Q.
•
cu
•
/ .
CU
•
I--#
cu
E 4—'
•
cu
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
of
�l�Y
N
W
0
U
t
�f
y z4
z Y `
r
5
Y>
I .
Z
c '
fa
AIMMINO
i
i
f
}Y
AMMOO
klurr
ti
1
z
LAMY
3 '
f
F
5 f er
4
r x '
w,
•
�/
W
r
•
1
t
1
•
t.
•
u
7E
•
F
•
m
I
pqlb
•
L�
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
■ I'
•
•
Q
•
Ili
•
•
• •
•
•
0
•
•
ham(
t %fEi
�
3
O
U
t�
Y
� r
Y -
CL
■
,s
co
ti
t
4 � '
NE
U■
fi
L
J.
Kf ":
c
Agammo
Vu
■ ®
Alftk
t
l^
i
( / / /_n
■
f7
4p
cn
13
r
pqlb
•
L�
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
■ I'
•
•
Q
•
Ili
•
•
• •
•
•
0
•
•
ham(
t %fEi
1
TAF,
r
p! {
T
gg6.
•
t
•
9
•
•
W
*—.go
•
1-.-1
•
•
•
FE]
K,�
AW
t
•
C
.1
ig
mi
V�
19
r4f�
9
A
•
I
� {ƒ
� \\
; �)`)\
,i / / /\)}
z
0
U.
LU I.-
LU ■
0
w
09 z
2w0:
<
0
LLJ
Lt. X1
w!
V) 1
J
I
0
CO
u
CL
CL
073 0.
0 04-
CU C:
CU
------------------------ cn
M <
cu (D (D
cn C:
0 0
cu cu No
cu
(D
AO >
UJ a) a) CU
cu a)
r--%-
-0 a)
(D
cn a)
. . . . . -1--i A-j -1-j
(D
U) U) U)
■
CL cu 0
0
"W
m
4-
.......... "I'll,
vi
m
•
•
1 1
I '
•
•
1
�o
A-0
Co
a)
o
ii
1 '
•
1
cn
1
•
0
r• • / •
(D " 3: (n L-
0 cu a)
X > 3� 0
cu
Lq w cu N a)
LO
00 42 z <
1
■ 0 0 0 0 0
1
•
0
L.
0.
/
i
•
•
M
•
•
•
I
1
1
n
w®
TO
i
*%00001
i
1 -
CU cn
a
• cu
•
CD
•
•
MINE
t;
.
.
•
1
0
cu
1
1
1
0
a)
•
cu
•
•
•
cn
cu
cu
0
•
i
1 -
CU cn
a
• cu
•
CD
•
•
MINE
t;
t
.............
1
1 •
CL
•
0 U)
•
rn
C:
C:
cu
a) w
L.
C) •
l
C-r
0
U) U)
�-
1 Is
1 /
1
1
1
•
•
1 1
1
L
VI-67,
1
•
1
•
•
•
1
1
•
•
1
•
m
J "
--I
i
5
lo
1 •
0
M
,M
„M
L
•
•
• /
•
a) 0
4-a
ry
U) 0
'CU
4.
C/) • ��
a) 0
t
0 00
• �•
•
1
1 �
c•
3 0 •
o
1
1 CU /
�O • t
Lf 4-1 • /
cn • /
1 1
QD •
a) C) a) a) c 0 'E C:
1 • / 1 1
�q Fn
m �
U)
1
U)
1
•
•
I
pi
•
IM-1
•
m
•
■
•
�0,�
O
N
:i
►
•
•
•
t
W
0 i
�J
TIA
•
•
•
►
•
•
0
•
•
M'
LIM-
CO
-t •
CIO
cu
1
•
Co
•
1
•
1 �
CO
U
L. A �10
a) cn
cn
t'
f
•
ti
W,
u
NA
•
Fm-
qqb
N
N
-
•.
4
i
qqb
N
N
-
•.
qqb
N
N
Y
•
0
•
•
0
e
®
d
•
O
•
0
•
•
•
�
s
Y
EXHIBIT-2
ORANGE COUNTY TRANSFER STATION
TENTATIVE IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
ACTIVITY
DURATION
START DATE
COMPLETION
DATE
BOCC Site Selection
12/11/08
Property Acquisition
2 Months
12/11/2008
2/9/2009
Concept Design
2 Months
12/11/2008
2/9/2009
Site Plan Design
2 Months
2/9/2009
4/10/2008
OC Site Plan Review & Approval
3 Months
4/10/2009
7/9/2009
Permitting
5 Months
2/9/2009
7/9/2009
Facility Design
7 Months
2/9/2009
9/7/2009
Development of Final Construction
Documents
• Site Preparation Package
1 -1/2 Months
7/9/2009
8/24/2009
• General Building Contract
3 Months
9/7/2009
12/10/2009
Advertisement, Bidding &
Contract Award
• Site Preparation Package
2 -1/2 Months
8/24/2009
11/6/2009
• General Building Contract
3 Months
12/10/2009
3/8/2010
Project Construction
• Site Preparation Package
4 Months
11/6/2009
3/8/2010
• General Building Contract
14 -1/2 Months
3/8/2010
5/20/2011
November 10, 2008 Page 1
l)
ORANGE COUNTY
TRANSFER STATION IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
2009
2
Property Acquisition - ___..._..._ .. _...
2008 -12 -11
2009-02 49
Concept Design -- . -._ ». __........_ ... - -- . _.
- 2008 -12 -11 -
2009 -02-09
i
3
Permitting 8 Detailed Design
2009 -02 -09
2009.09 -07
4
5—
Site Plan Design
2009 -02 -09
2009 -04-10
- ..._.._ ...................... .. .- -- - ........_.........._.._.._.....
OC Site Pian Review &Approval
............----_..
2009 -04 -10
".... "......
2009-07 -09
6
_........._,..-
Permitting
-- ........... .. _ ............
2009-02 -09
: ....._.._....._...
2009-07 -09
7
"FacilityDeslgn � -
2009 - 02-09' -
2009 -09 -07-
�
8
"T-"'
• Development of Construction Documents
2009 -07.09
2009-12 -10
10
Site Preparation Package
2009 -07 -09 !
— --- --
2009-08 -24
11
General Building Contract
2009 09-07'
2009 -12 -10
12
Advertisement, Bidding 8 Contract Award
20D9-08 -24
2010 -03 -08
VF
Site Preparation Contract
2009-08 -24
2009 -11 -06
`
13
'i-4'--'
General Building Contact
2009 -12 -10
2010 -03-08
15
— ...._.... _.._ ............. . ... .......... ... _ ..............
Project Construction
----- 20.0•-9- 1.- -00- --
2009 -11 1-06
2.01.-...0- -----
2011.05 -20
Site Preparation Contract
.............20 °--..:66 -
2009 -11 -06
.........- .....21..22..
2010-03 -OB
a
16
General Building Contract
2010 -03-08
2011 -05-20
17
Project: Transfer Station implementation Schedule Task Progress I Milestone ® Summary Deadline 47
Date: November 10, 2008
Page 1
r•
1 DRAFT
2 MINUTES
3 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
4 TRANSFER STATION SITING WORK SESSION
5 October 21, 2008
6 6:30 p.m.
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Transfer Station Si-ting'Work
9 Session on Tuesday, October 21, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in
10 Chapel Hill, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Valerie P.
13 Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, and Mike Nelson
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Moses Carey, Jr.
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: Geof Gledhill
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Laura Blackmon, Assistant County Manager
17 Gwen Harvey and Willie Best, and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will
18 be identified appropriately below)
19
20 NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT
21 AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
22
23 1. Call to Order/introductions/Opening Comments
24 Chair Jacobs said that this process has been going on for a long time and the County
25 Commissioners are working through a deliberate process. There has been time set aside for
26 comments from the public, however there are more people to comment than there is time
27 tonight. He said that when the sites are narrowed down, there will be public comment on those
28 sites. He said that the meetings tonight were not for public comment, but for the County
29 Commissioners to discuss specific issues. There will be advertisements for the meetings that
30 will have the full evening� available for public comment. This is the beginning of a new phase of
31 the process.
32 Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey said that the purpose of this meeting is to
33 resume the work sessions related to the selection of a solid waste transfer station in Orange
34 County. The last meeting was on September 16th, and Olver, Inc. provided the results of the
35 findings related to the technical criteria. At that time, the Board directed the consultants to go
36 forward with the ten candidate sites that were presented for discussion at that meeting to
37 community-specific criteria evaluation. The Board has previously approved exclusionary
38 criteria, technical criteria, and community-specific is the third element as this moves forward.
39 The purpose of the work session tonight is to present those findings from Olver, Inc. to the
40 Board and to the public.
41 She introduced representatives from Olver, Inc: Bob Sallach, Ron Singleton, Sandy
42 Turner, and Lewis Wafts.
43
44 2. Receive Report from Olver, Inc. on Application of Community- Specific Criteria to
45 Ten (5—) Candidate Sites Presented on September 16'"
46 Bob Sallach explained in depth the three types of criteria – exclusionary, technical, and
47 community-specific. He made a PowerPoint presentation.
48
49 Work Session Agenda
50 -Opening Remarks
51 ■Transfer Station Articles (hftp://www.co.orange.nc.us/OCCLERKS/TransStNews.htm)
I ■Transfer Station Web Site (http://www.olver.com/orangecounty) -
2 -Presentation of Community-Specific Evaluation –10 Candidate Sites
3 -Discussion of Technical and Community-Specific Results
4 -Discussion of Proposed Public Participation Strategies
5 -Receive Public Comment
6 -BOCC Direction and Feedback
7
8 Siting Process Status Summary
9 - Identified 10 Potential Sites based upon Exclusionary Criteria & Technical Screening
10 - Completed Technical Evaluation of Potential Sites
11 -Completed Community-Specific Evaluation of 10 Sites
12 ■Community-Specific Point Totals and Rankings
13
14 Bob Sallach explained that the highest point total represents the best site. He pointed out
15 the ten sites on the maps. The sites are identified by a three-digit number.
16 Site 826 is the site that is in Hillsborough in the vicinity of the water tank.
17 Sites .827 and 573 are sites located off of 1-40 and Old NC 86.
18 Site 669 is the Eubanks Road landfill site.
19 Site 717 is located in the Dodson's Crossroad area.
20 Sites 010, 759, 696, 779, and 056 are on NC 54 in the western part of the County.
21
22 Community-Specific Evaluation
23 -Community-Specific Evaluation Phase
24 NPurpose — Ranking of Candidate Sites for Consideration by BOCC
25 mincluded 10 Sites from Technical Evaluation Phase
26 - Ordinal Ranking of Sites with Respect to each Community-Specific Criterion
27 -Computation of Site Point Totals ,
28 013ased upon Ordinal Rank and Criteria Weighting Factor
29
30 Community- Specific Criteria
31 -Environmental Justice Considerations
32 ■Minority Populations
33 nAge
34 ■Education
35 ■1-ow Income
36 ■Potentially Cumulative Environmental Impacts
37 - Impact on Air Quality
38 ■Travel Time from the Waste Generation Centroid – Indicator of Impact
39 - Impact on Local Infrastructure
40 mAccess to Primary Arterials
41 ■Availability of Water & Sewer Service
42 -Adjacent Land Uses
43 ■Residential &'Business Address Points on Parcels Adjacent to Proposed Site Boundary
44 - Proximity to Schools, Churches, and Recreation Sites
45 - Number of Residents Impacted
46 ■Within 500 Feet and 1000 Feet
47 - Presence of Natural Buffers
2
I ■On-Site Wooded, Topographic Relief or Other Features
2 •Impacts on Existing Businesses
3 -Buffer Zones and Screening Measures
4 NOff-Site Wooded, Topographic Relief, or Other Features
5 *Traffic Compatibility
6 ■Street or Roadway Connector Access to Major Arterials and Highways
7 ■Proximity to Bike Routes, Schools, etc.
8 -Impact on Historic or Cultural Features
9 E Number of Features within 1000 Feet of Site
10 -Cost Consideration
11 ■Site Development Costs
12 mAssessed Tax Value
13
14 Community-Specific
15 Site Evaluation Summary
16
17 Community- Specific Site Evaluation Summary
18
19 Technical Site
20 Evaluation Summary
21
22 Technical & Community- Specific Site Evaluation Summaries
23
24
25 3. Discuss Results of Technical Criteria along side Results of Community- Specific
26 "Criteria
27
28 Bob Sallach reiterated that the rank is simply the numeric point total and does not
29 represent the recommendation to the Board or the Board's desire. The highest ranked site is
30 #759. He said that there is a significant break after the sixth site in terms of total points.
31 He went through the Technical and Community- Specific Evaluation Summaries, which
32 showed the ranking of the sites based on both sets of criteria. For example, site 857 had a
33 technical criteria ranking of 1 but a community-specific criteria ranking of 6.
34 He said that this is presented to the Board for further consideration.
35
36 Chair Jacobs said that Commissioner Carey could not be here and is en route from the
37 airport and may be here later. He said that the Board of County Commissioners at its meeting
38 last week established that it did not want to have more than three candidate sites.
39 Commissioner Foushee pointed out that the Board did not officially decide on three sites,
40 but there was a general consensus.
41 Bob Sallach pointed out that in this consideration, there is one site that is freely offered for
42 sale, and this is site 056.
43 Commissioner Foushee made reference to the number of sites off of NC 54 and if anyone
44 has measured the distance from these sites to the 1-40/1-85 connector. Bob Sallach said that
45 they have looked at distances and travel time from the centroid of waste generation to the site,
46 but not to the station itself. He said that the travel pattern from the transfer station will be
47 somewhat dictated on where ultimate disposal is.
48 Commissioner Nelson said that, in looking at the community-specific and technical criteria,
49 it seems that there is a fairly clean break between the top four sites and the fifth site.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
10
Additionally, all four of the sites rank within the top half from the technical criteria. His point is
that there is a clean break between the top four and ones below them. He suggested breaking
the sites at this point and eliminating the remainder of the sites.
Gwen Harvey said that Olver, Inc. has discussed, in looking at the comparison between
the technical and community-specific criteria, that there is an apparent correlation with certain
sites that Bob Sallach is prepared to address. This may be helpful in the Board coming to a
decision about how to achieve a manageable number of sites.
Bob Sallach pointed out the top five sites in the technical criteria and said that there is a
tie between #5 and #6. The top four sites are 759, 056, 779, and 573. He pointed out the sites
on the map:
573 — off of 1-40
779 — West NC 54
056 — adjacent to 779 (freely offered site for sale)
759 — NC 54 (OWASA site)
Commissioner Gordon made reference to the top four for the community-specific criteria
along with the technical criteria, and this would leave three sites.
Chair Jacobs said that if you take the technical and community-specific criteria, then two
sites really jump out — 779 and 759. He said that it is clear that these two rank higher than the
others. Also, it is clear that at least three rank significantly lower than any others, and that is
717, 010, and 826. The Board agreed.
Chair Jacobs also suggested eliminating site 669. The Board agreed.
Commissioner Foushee said that she also considers that one of the sites is currently used
for a public purpose. The other site now has a willing seller. She would think that these facts
should be considered also.
Geof Gledhill said that it may look like this is an exclusionary criteria applied after the fact,
and he does not think that this is a good idea. He said that the availability is part of the
technical criteria and that is weighted in the methodology.
Commissioner Nelson said that three of the top four in the community-specific criteria —
759, 779, and 056 — rank significantly higher than the sites that fall below them and there seems
to be a natural break there. He would feel comfortable with these three sites.
Commissioner Gordon said that as the Board was going through the criteria, the original
idea was to do the exclusionary first, then technical, and then community-specific. She said
that these three sites would follow this process.
The proposal is 769, 779, and 066, based on the fact that these are the likeliest sites
based on both sides of the criteria.
The Board agreed.
4. Discuss Proposed Strategies for Public Participation in Moving Forward with
Candidate Site(s)
Chair Jacobs said that there was a proposed process on September 16th, which called
upon the consultant to solicit comment from the community surrounding all ten sites. The Board
of County Commissioners saw some problems with that process, so it was decided to use this
process for public comment. The discussion now moves to how the Board will receive public
comment and what the public process will be.
. Commissioner Gordon pointed out that June 24th was when the Board adopted the final
community-specific criteria.
Gwen Harvey said that at last week's work session, there was a discussion of alternate
proposals for public participation and the impact that the participation would have on moving
forward with the project timelines, which was to be in a position for the Board to make a
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
determination about the final site at the meeting on November 18th. There were three
proposals.
The first proposal would involve the Board choosing five candidate sites at this meeting,
then conducting one or more public hearings around those five potential sites from the ten
candidate sites, and then making a decision on November 18 th
The second proposal would have been for the Board to decide a manageable number of
sites, maybe less than five, and then Olver, Inc. would take the sites out for public listening
sessions. The Board would then have a public comment period and make its determination at
that time to move forward.
The third proposal was for the Board to possibly choose one site at this meeting and then
have public information and education sessions take place out in the community concerning that
one site and come back on November 18th with the opportunity for further public discussion
before the Board made its decision.
The Board agreed at the work session to narrow the list down to three sites, which it has
just done. The Board also decided to have the Board receive public comment directly as
opposed to having Olver, Inc. serve as the interface in the community.
Chair Jacobs said that the Board is trying to operate under constraints such as the fact
that the landfill will close in 2011. Also, the Board was trying to make decisions before it added
three new County Commissioners on December Vt.
He explained the public comment process for tonight.
Commissioner Gordon said that there is only one more meeting before December 1 St and
she would like to take due process. She suggested having one more meeting to discuss this.
Chair Jacobs said that the Board has a regularly scheduled meeting at 7:30 p.m. and
there are 45 people signed up to speak. He said that this list could be taken to the next public
meeting. He asked that people with written comments give them to the Clerk.
5. Receive Public Comment on Results of Technical Criteria and Community- Specific
Criteria and Proposals for Public Participation
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Chris Cole said that quality of life is a community issue and not a technical issue. He said
that a transfer station is not a long-term solution. He said that there should be a parallel track
focusing on recycling. He said that there are other green solutions than shipping the trash
somewhere else. He said that it is a concern to him that the County is looking at such large
parcels of land when the future use of the balance of the land has not been determined or
disclosed. He said that moving the site away from where the trash is generated is not
environmental justice either.
Gayane Chambless read a prepared statement and submitted 585 signatures expressing
concern for environmental, economic, and the site selection process.
"Thank you, Commissioners, for the opportunity to be heard. After the disclosure of the
potential sites just one month ago, I began a mission to learn more in order to understand what
you were looking at. What I found was a number of inconsistencies which began to alarm me.
One of these was that Olver, Inc. introduced Community Input Forms, and touted them (on their
website and in meetings) as if they were with your full knowledge and approval. So much so,
that a group submitted them to you at the September 16th meeting. I am aware that numerous
people wanted to submit forms and posed questions to County staff and/or Olver. It was not
until nearly a month later that a press release from you was issued stating it was not with your
approval. I assume that you will take into account the 240 forms already submitted and in all
fairness will allow those who wanted to have input be allowed as well.
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I!
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
M
More distressing to me however, is the seemingly inconsistent evaluation of the criteria,
such as the Adopted Exclusionary Criteria, which you did approve. According to that, under
item 5'Floodplain as defined in the Orange County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. Any
land area susceptible to being inundated by water from any source. Floodplains in Orange
County are delineated on an official map of Orange County, issued by FEMA...'
As you can see here, from Figure 4-Sites with Wetlands and Floodplains, it appears that
this creek outlined in green ends just north of 1-40. This would seem to go along with the
pictures in their research. No creek or water source appears to be affected. However,
information has come forward from the Orange County GIS and FEMA, which clearly shows that
the two creeks, Cates Creek and Cates Creek tributary, actually do extend south beyond 1-40.
When you look at the Orange County Floodplain Map from 2008, it shows that both parcels are
affected not only by the presence of the creeks, but also have 100 -year floodplains. According
to a letter from FEMA to Commissioner Carey in January 2008, it is clear that development
along Cates Creek and its tributaries affect flooding issues along these creeks. According to the
NC Division of Water Resources, one acre of impervious surface produces 16 times more runoff
than a one-acre meadow (source: News & Observer in 2006).
Yet the consultant and Mr. Wilson have told us at the Hillsborough Advisory Meeting, that
construction here would not affect the area. I would ask you to tell that to the people who live
here: (she showed a picture)
This is how development in the area has affected those along Cates Creek and tributaries.
So, according to the information provided by Orange County, FEMA, and the NFIP
(National Flood Insurance Program) of 2007, it appears that all are in agreement that sites 857
and 573 are indeed in a floodplain, and should therefore have been automatically excluded
based on the adopted exclusionary criteria. Yet they were not. This is a flaw. I just wonder
how many other flaws or omissions are in the overall study."
Ralph Warren lives in one of the affected communities along NC 54. He thanked the
County Commissioners, County staff, State staff, and Olver, Inc. for the work that has been
done. He said that site 010 is one of the finer sites along NC 54. He made reference to setting
the point differences and said that most of the sites are pretty similar along that line. He said
that there is no process that allows for closeness. He is concerned about this process.
Secondly, he said that in terms of the environmental justice, the area along NC 54 has had a
series of "environmental assaults", including land acquisition for a southwest bypass in the
1970's, two proposals for an airport location in the 1980's, land acquisition for Cane Creek-'
Reservoir, land acquisition for the treated waste building at the 759 site, and now the transfer
station and the UNC airport siting survey.
Sarah Timme said that she would like Jo Soulier to speak for her with a letter. Jo Soulier
read the letter from the heirs of Carl Pegg, which are the owners of parcel 857.
Dear Mr. Sallach:
I am the Power of Attorney for my Grandmother, Eleanor Pegg, who is 98 years old and
unable to speak on her behalf. My Grandfather, Carl Pegg, is deceased. I received your letter
regarding the aforementioned transfer after the County Commissioners' meeting, as I would
have made arrangements to appear on behalf of my Grandmother.
I wanted to provide you with a little background on my grandparents. Carl Pegg moved to
Chapel Hill in 1923 to attend the University of North Carolina (UNC), and later accepted a
position as Professor of History in 1930. It is there where he met his wife Eleanor Smith. They
made Chapel Hill their home and my grandmother still lives in Chapel Hill.
My grandparents have been philanthropic in both Orange and Chatham Counties, helping
out individuals as well as institutions. They acquired much of their land in tough times as people
were in need of cash. And sometimes, when folks got "back on their feet," my grandfather
would sell it back to the original owner at no profit.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
VA
Carl and Eleanor were also avid environmentalists, having a great love and appreciation
for land and nature. They are well known at the Triangle Land Conservancy as my grandmother
donated a 74-acre tract of land, also known as Bald Mountain, in 1995 in memory of my
Grandfather who had recently passed away. It has since been renamed Pegg Hill. As a little
girl, I remember hearing stories about my grandparents packing a lunch every Sunday and
hiking to the top of the mountain to enjoy its beautiful rock formations and trees.
More recently, my grandmother gifted another parcel of some 90 acres in Chatham
County in order to preserve a beautiful piece of land, which also contains rare plants, near
Bynam on the Haw River. With this gifting she was able to fund an Exhibit Hall at the UNC
Botanical Gardens and funded an additional $200,000.00 to the already existing Pegg
Scholarship Fund. This fund, started in 1983, has provided over 550 scholarships to students
who otherwise would not be able to attend college. In her will, my grandmother has also stated
that additional monies will go to the Pegg Scholarship Fund.
I appeal to you, and Orange County, to respectfully remove this parcel from consideration
for the Transfer Station due to the enormous amount of gifting my graparents have done. They
have enabled many to enjoy over 150 acres of land they have gifted to TLC and UNC and
provided the ability for literally hundreds of North Carolina students to attend UNC. By losing
this tract, whether in its entirety or partially, further gifting may be jeopardized.
Please supply me with the appropriate contact at the Orange County Board of
Commissioners for further appeal. I merely ask you to consider the extensive gifting my
grandparents have done, and may do in the future.
I appreciate your attention to this matter. Should you have any questions, or seek further
information, please contact me directly.
Sincerely,
Suzanne H. Upton
POA for Eleanor Pegg
Dan Eddleman said that he has served on the Orange County Planning Board and Board
of Adjustment. He presented some material from a book entitled, Waste Management
Practices..A compilation of EPA, state, city and professional organizations best practices by
John Pichtel. This source strongly emphasizes a need for access to major truck routes. He
said that the availability of rail lines would significantly help reduce costs in this operation. He
said that full water and sewer would be needed for the fires that may occur at these sites. He
gave some examples of fires in other transfer stations. He said that with compacted trash, the
odds of spontaneous combustion is much higher. He pointed out that the cost comparison
between building a new transfer station and a dump facility is extremely close. Greensboro has
had to raise taxes because of the building of a transfer station, which is ideally suited on 1 -40/1-
85. He said that the cost would be huge for this transfer station.
John Kizer said that he was a member of the Planning Board when the County adopted
the land use rezoning. He said that it would be ironic if the preservation of this area the County
has served only to leave large tracts of land available on which public facilities can be placed
without regards to the needs or expectations of the residents who live in this area and have
preserved these places for the County. He made reference to comments from Commissioner
Gordon in some of the minutes that, "it would preferable to place a transfer facility 'in an area
already zoned for such an implication." He said that this position has been endorsed by citizen
comment at public meetings. He said that zoning amendments must be reasonably necessary
to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare and to achieve the purpose of the
7
I adopted comprehensive plan. He does not believe that the spirit of the zoning ordinance would
2 be met by rezoning properties on NC 54 for this use.
3
4 Commissioner Gordon said that she still thinks that the Board needs to move
5 expeditiously, but she is impressed with what the speakers have said as to the process. She
6 wants the public to know that the County Commissioners have heard them.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
6. Decide Direction and Feedback to County Manaqement and Olver, Inc. on Next
Steps:—Candidate Sites to Move Forward in the Process and Public Participation Strategy
to Follow
Chair Jacobs asked how the County Commissioners were to regard the draft forms that
were previously filled. The County Commissioners have not approved the forms. Also, it is
clear that the consultant will do a more detailed analysis of all three sites.
Commissioner Nelson asked who would start conversations with owners of the properties,
especially OWASA, and Chair Jacobs said that he would like to contact these owners tomorrow.
Commissioner Gordon said that the County Commissioners need to be very clear with the
public about what is going to be done and that there are no surprises. She would like to have
complete transparency.
Chair Jacobs asked staff about sending notices to people who are within a certain
distance of a proposed site. He suggested that this be done even though it is not required.
Chair Jacobs said that any suggestions from the public should be sent to him or the Clerk
and all County Commissioners will see them.
7. Adjourn
A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to
adjourn the meeting at 7:12 p.m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Donna S. Baker, CMC
Clerk to the Board
Barry Jacobs, Chair