JOINT
PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
AND
THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
MONDAY,
FEBRUARY 21, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M.
Moses Carey, Chair of the Orange
County Board of Commissioners, opened the public hearing at 7:00 p.m.
Town of Chapel Hill elected
officials present were: Mayor Rosemary Waldorf; Mayor pro tem Lee Pavão;
Council Members Flicka Bateman, Joyce Brown, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Bill Strom,
Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.
Orange County elected officials
present were: Chair Moses Carey; Orange County Commissioners Margaret Brown,
Alice Gordon, Steve Halkiotis, and Barry Jacobs.
Town of Chapel Hill staff members
present: Town Manager Cal Horton, Town
Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and
Florentine Miller, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Solid Waste Management
Director Gayle Wilson, Assistant to the Town Manager Bill Stockard, and Acting
Town Clerk Toni Pendergraph.
Orange County staff present:
County Manager John Link, County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill, and County
Planning Director Craig Benedict.
Item 1 – Greene Tract – Application for Zoning Atlas
Amendment
Chairman Carey emphasized that
the public hearing would involve only the rezoning of 60 acres of the 169-acre
Greene Tract. He explained that the
soon-to-be completed environmental assessment would determine which 60 acres
would be most suitable for rezoning.
Chairman Carey stated that the assessment would be completed prior to
the Chapel Hill Town Council’s next meeting.
Chairman Carey said that after
the public hearing the Town Council would refer this item to the Town Manager
and Town Attorney. He explained that
the Commissioners would refer it to their Planning Board for recommendations. Chairman Carey added that if comments were
made in the first public hearing that relate to the second public hearing they
would automatically be included in the record for the second hearing.
Chapel Hill Planning Director
Roger Waldon explained that the application was to rezone the Greene Tract from
its existing category (rural transition) to the materials handling district
category. Displaying the Greene Tract
on a map, Mr. Waldon explained that various uses were being discussed in
conjunction with the Master Plan. He
noted that the purpose of the hearing was to rezone a 60-acre portion, which
would allow that portion to be used for solid waste management purposes.
Mr. Waldon presented a schedule
of key dates for the process:
·
Tonight: Joint Public
Hearing.
·
Feb, 29th County
Commissioners meet to discuss “Which 60 acres?”
·
March 6th Chapel
Hill Town Council meet to discuss “Which 60 acres?” and to consider action on
rezoning and to consider action on the amendment regarding buffers
·
March 7 Carrboro
Board of Aldermen meet to discuss “Which 60 acres?”
·
Final Step Action
by Board of County Commissioners on rezoning application.
Mr. Waldon said that the
expectation is that the Council would have an option to rezone a sixty-acre
portion of the Greene Tract. He added
that the Council would also have an option to take unilateral action on the
buffer regulations for the materials handling district.
Mr. Waldon pointed out that the
Commissioners and Council Members had a memorandum that explained that the
materials handling district allows a range of uses that are permitted by Chapel
Hill’s ordinance. He explained that if
the property were rezoned to this materials handling district the property
owner could apply for approval of those uses, which do not include landfilling.
Mr. Waldon noted that the Town
had received a valid protest petition from property owners surrounding this
site. He stated that this dictates an
affirmative vote of seven out of nine Council Members to act affirmatively on
this application.
Council Member Joyce Brown
requested that two documents be entered into the record to be included in the
later discussion:
(a) The
October 19, 1995 recommendation to the Landfill Owners Group, signed by
Gertrude Nunn, Judy Nunn Snipes, Roger Snipes, Ashley Nunn, Irving Nunn, Larry
Reid, George Griffin, Joyce Brown, Jacquie Gist, and Don Wilhoit. She noted that this document listed the
conditions under which the Neville Tract would be purchased. Council Member Brown stated that the
document mentions the Greene Tract, and states that there is a prohibition
against any type of dumping or storage.
(b) The
November 13, 1995 Council resolution authorizing the Chapel Hill Town Manager
to utilize the Landfill Land Reserve Fund to purchase the property known as the
Neville Tract.
Chapel Hill Director of Solid
Waste Management Gayle Wilson gave the applicant’s presentation. He explained that the basis for the
rezoning request was that it was part of the Interlocal Agreement, which is a
contract between the three governments to transfer solid waste management
responsibilities to Orange County. Mr.
Wilson said that rezoning was the only issue remaining before the Agreement
could be fully implemented.
Mr. Wilson commented that
although the rezoning request was for the entire tract, ultimately only 60
acres would be rezoned. He explained
that two surveys (a biological resources survey, and a cultural and
archeological survey) had been initiated, and he passed out copies of the
completed Cultural Resource Survey by TRC Garrow and Associates. Mr. Wilson reported that the biological
resources survey had not been completed.
He distributed an interim report, and said that the final report would
be available in a few weeks.
Mr. Wilson explained that
specific steps had been taken to establish a timeline for providing water
services to the Rogers Road community.
He added that a draft proposal of that timeline would be available on or
about March 1st.
Mayor Rosemary Waldorf asked Mr.
Wilson where people would be able to obtain the information about water services
on Rogers Road when it is ready on March 1st. Commissioner Carey replied that the
information would be available at the County Clerk’s and the County Manager’s
offices.
Chapel Hill Planning Board Chair
Gay Eddy stated that the Board had voted (6-1) to recommend that the
application for the rezoning be denied.
She reported that the Board felt the application was premature,
uncertain, and vague. Ms. Eddy said
that the Board could not see how this piece of property was going to be used,
and they could not see how the solid waste goals of the Comprehensive Plan
could justify rezoning that land to the materials handling district at this
time.
Specifically, Ms. Eddy said, the Board wondered why the Town had
been asked to look at rezoning more than 60 acres. They also wondered why the Town was not being told exactly which
60 acres would be rezoned, what would be located there, and why the rezoning
was being requested before overall solid waste management plans have been
determined.
Commissioner Carey noted that the
proposal was not to rezone more than 60 acres of the site. He stated that the public hearing was on the
entire site because of the reasons that had just been explained relating to
environmental and cultural surveys.
Commissioner Carey added that the Board would identify the specific 60
acres prior to any action.
Heather Mills, Principal
Investigator for TRC Garrow and Associates, stated that her firm had conducted
the Cultural Resource Survey of the entire 169 acres. She said that they had identified two low-density prehistoric
sites, which were not significant because they would not produce any additional
information if studied.
Ms. Mills said that her firm also
found two historic sites represented by foundations. One, in the center of the tract, had been called the Byrd
farmhouse, she explained, but they cannot establish exactly when it was
constructed (probably between 1870-1910).
Ms. Hills reported that there were intact, archeological deposits around
that house, such as a well and a remnant kitchen hearth.
Ms. Mills explained that the
other site, referred to in deeds as the Rebecca N. Johnston pots house, was
located along a stream to the south of the Byrd farm, adjacent to an unused
access road that had been overgrown.
She said that there are pots in that house dating back to 1879, but they
had not determined exactly when the house was constructed. Ms. Mills explained that the house is
represented by a foundation, with no other features nearby. It does have intact archeological deposits
and has been left undisturbed, she said.
Ms. Mills recommend either
leaving those two sites undisturbed or having other cultural resource studies
done if they fall in the desired 60-acre tract. She noted that there also were four isolated finds, which were
single artifacts that do not represent archeological sites.
Mr. Joel Potter, Principal
Investigator with Robert J. Goldstein & Associates, Inc., reported that his
firm had only one day on the site, but had walked the boundaries and streams
and had mapped out the areas. Using
overhead slides, Mr. Potter showed where the streams drained off, where the
wetlands were, and which areas contained the hardwoods. From an ecological perspective, he said, the
northern area and the lower eastern side would be the most valuable. He added that about one to five acres of
wetlands down in the southern part would be suitable for some of the County’s
rare species.
Orange County Commissioner Alice
Gordon stated that someone should make it clear to the public why they were
having this hearing on rezoning before the exact 60 acres have been
determined. Commissioner Carey replied
that the public hearing had been required by the Joint Planning Agreement and
by the Chapel Hill planning and rezoning process. He asked Mr. Waldon to comment on that process.
Mr. Waldon explained that the
Town’s touchstone on this issue was the Interlocal Agreement that had been
negotiated and executed by the three parties.
He noted that that Agreement prescribed the transfer of sixty acres of
the Greene Tract to the County for possible solid waste management. Mr. Waldon added that another part of the
Agreement calls for rezoning of that property in a manner that would allow a
materials handling use. In order to do
that, he said, the parties have to go through a joint planning process because
the Greene Tract is in the joint planning area. Mr. Waldon stated that the sequence was set up to allow time to
meet deadlines and to accomplish the Interlocal Agreement. Along the way, he explained, issues were
raised that led the Commissioners to request the two studies to get more
information.
Public Comment:
David Godschalk, a 35-year
resident of Chapel Hill, stated that this potentially “unwise decision” had the
feeling of a “done deal.” He argued
that the proposal to rezone 60 acres of prime, developable land for an
industrial, solid waste handling facility instead of a future walkable Chapel
Hill neighborhood is neither smart growth nor sustainable development. Mr. Godschalk stressed that the priority
ought to be neighborhoods for people and not for industrial materials
handling.
Mr. Godschalk said that this
would be inconsistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and that the
area could be an ideal transit-oriented, mixed-use development site. He added that citizens, if shown pictures of
these two alternatives, would choose the development over the transfer
station. Mr. Godschalk asked the Council
and Commissioners to use their common sense and reject the proposal.
Kenneth Rudo, a Eubanks Road
resident, gave a series of public health reasons against rezoning the
tract. He said that rezoning would be
“amoral and shameful,” arguing that elected officials should not have the right
to make a decision that would pose a health risk to their fellow citizens. Mr. Rudo stated that both sides of the
landfill might have contaminated drinking well water, with carcinogenic and
chlorinated solvents at levels posing a health risk. He said that there might also be gasoline, MTBE in particular, in
the wells on Rogers Road.
Mr. Rudo pointed out that strong
odors emanating from the landfill are making residents ill, including his own
daughter. He expressed amazement that
officials would consider voting to rezone this area, given all they know about
how exposures to toxic odors and contaminated drinking water has affected those
who live near the landfill. He wondered
how they could consider putting the health of the neighborhood at further risk
merely to fulfill an agreement.
Mr. Rudo suggested that it would
be inadvisable to rezone this tract because there is a health document in his
Department with the State that claims that agents in odors such as these pose a
health risk to humans. He noted that
there are laws that allow the State Health Department to close a facility that
poses an imminent public health risk.
Mr. Rudo pointed out that the State could close any installation the
County put in there. He asked the
Officials to think about how they would feel if they had to smell the
overpoweringly noxious odors day in and day out while also knowing that their
water was contaminated. Mr. Rudo said
that the Town had run roughshod over these folks for many years, and suggested
that the Council not make it worse.
Mr. Rudo said that he had known
several of the Council Members and the Mayor for many years and had never seen
them do anything that would put citizens’ health at risk. He asked them to continue with that record.
Council Member Bateman asked Mr.
Rudo if the same harmful health effects that are occurring from the landfill
would occur from a transfer station or MIRF site. Mr. Rudo replied that it would depend on what they put on the
site, adding that the boundaries of what could and could not be put there had
not been defined in any clear manner.
He added that an incinerator would exacerbate the problem. Mr. Rudo noted that this was citizens’ last
chance to oppose the station. He
pointed out that the County could put anything there it wanted if the Town
Council rezoned it.
Commissioner Carey said that he
did not think that materials handling included burial of any kind. He added that he had heard no discussion
from anyone about incineration being considered for the site. Commissioner Carey added that he had not
heard of incineration being discussed for anywhere in the County, for that
matter.
Carole Crumley, an anthropology
professor at UNC and a member of the Shaping Orange County’s Future Citizens
Committee, said she had been teaching a course to twelve advanced undergraduates
and graduate students on “the evolution of landscapes.” She said that the course concentrated on a
single landscape element that can be traced through time—the dump. Ms. Crumley said that at the end of the
semester students will make their report available to Orange County citizens,
County and Town elected officials, and staff.
She said that a few of her students would be offering some results of
their research tonight.
Mark Pettit, a UNC student,
discussed his class’s research project, which he explained was focused on
people rather than trash. He said the
purpose of the project was to understand the context in which waste disposal
decisions have been made. Mr. Pettit
reviewed how the New Hope community had lived for thirty years with the burden
of the County’s solid waste. He said
that expanding that burden with another waste site would be one more step
toward the disintegration of that historic community. Mr. Pettit added that Shaping Orange County’s Future is
interested in the concept of community building but recognizes that you need
not tear a community apart in order to build another one.
Rebekah Asbury, a graduate
student in the ecology curriculum at UNC, referred to a report by the Triangle
Land Conservancy entitled “Rating Land in Orange County by its Wildlife
Value.” She pointed out that the Green
Tract falls into the third highest ratings category as being a valuable
resource for maintaining wildlife habitat.
She said that it seems especially crucial that the results of the Environmental
Impact Study be made available to all stakeholders as soon as possible and that
everyone gives special weight to those results. Ms. Asbury added that an important ecological question to ask is
whether rezoning 60 acres of the Greene Tract would allow Orange County to
maintain its (“declining”) value as a landscape with wildlife.
Donna P. Rogers, who is on an
academic sabbatical from the EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
and working on a masters degree in Environmental Management at Duke University,
recommended using the Greene Tract for environmental education. She suggested building an outdoor classroom
there--complete with nature trails, tree identification tags, butterfly
gardens, and wildflower beds. Ms.
Rogers noted that this would give children an environmental education that
would instill in them a sense to preserve, conserve and sustain the earth for
their children.
Jo Ann Garvin, a graduate student
in the Department of City and Regional Planning at UNC, spoke about environmental
justice. Even though only one percent
of waste is toxic, she said, it is frightening to have one percent of thousands
of tons in your back yard. Ms. Garvin
noted that rezoning the tract would be one way to solve solid waste problem,
but it would add to the burden that the Rogers Road residents have carried for
the rest of the Town. She said that she
had trusted Town leaders 30 years ago when they promised that there would be a
park there when the landfill was covered over.
She pointed out that the “unwanted land use” had been placed in a small
neighborhood of people who are poor and mostly black.
Ms. Garvin pointed out that a
transfer station only needs 10 acres and wondered why that could only be found
in the same neighborhood as the landfill.
She said that the Town’s greatest need is to do what is right. Ms. Garvin expressed understanding that
Officials thought that they had no choice.
But, she said, “when they are about to do a terrible injustice there is
always another choice.”
Jordy Koski, a senior
anthropology student, said that he was troubled by ambiguities in the
process. He stated that questions that
had arisen from these ambiguities should be answered before a decision is made. Mr. Koski asked why is the County was asking
for 60 acres when its own waste management consultant found that a transfer
station only requires ten to twelve acres?
He also noted that dumping is found much more often adjacent to minority
neighborhoods, and suggested that it would better fit the Town’s sense of
equity to halt this practice. Mr.
Koski asked wouldn’t it be better to defer judgement until all stakeholders
have had a chance to review and reflect upon the information that had recently
been gathered. He suggested that the
Greene Tract be taken out of the Interlocal Agreement and that the Town Council
obtain more information about the land in their consideration of this process.
Ms. B. J. Norwood displayed the
inhalers and medicines that she used, perhaps because of arsenic in her water,
she said. Ms. Norwood noted that for
many years much of the landfill had not been regulated and was not lined. She asked for compassion from public
officials, and requested that they not use the Greene Tract in the proposed
manner.
Ms. Norwood said that the land
had been promised as sanctuary. She
pointed out that there are white tail hawks and alligator snapping turtles
there, neither of which is indigenous to the area. She said that the neighborhood needed something from the Town
which said “you people have suffered
enough.”
Reverend Robert Campbell, a
Rogers Road neighborhood resident, stated that the elected officials have a
responsibility to change the “game” that was started many years ago regarding
the landfill. He said that the neighborhood
is concerned about unseen harmful effects, such as rodents, buzzards, early
morning noise, and trucks that violate the speed limit and drop trash
everywhere. Reverend Campbell asked the
Council to visit the area at length before making a decision.
Robert Cox, a thirty-year
resident of Orange County and a former president of the Sierra Club, spoke
against the proposed rezoning request on the grounds that it would be
premature, unwise, and unjust. He said
that there had not been enough time to look at other proposed uses for that
land, and to determine what would be the highest and best use. Mr. Cox said that rezoning would not only be
unwise but would be a potentially inequitable resolution of both housing and
solid waste management in the County.
He suggested that Officials slow down and take the time to act with
prudence and equity.
Sally Council noted that two
families (the Nunns and the Blackwoods) had made room for all who have come
here, and at an enormous price. She
noted that the landfill was built in the middle of their neighborhood 28 years
ago. Since then, Ms. Council pointed
out, the population of Orange County has grown from 58,000 to 110,000 and the
population of Chapel Hill and Carrboro has increased from 29,000 to
60,000. She argued that no other
neighborhood has absorbed the rest of the County’s debris like those along
Eubanks and Rogers Roads.
Ms. Council reviewed the history
of the Greene Tract, and stated that it was not clear what it was being asked
to handle. She said that if the Council
approved the rezoning the Greene Tract would again be marked in a way that no
other tract in the County is. Ms.
Council asked Council members how they were able to commit to an action that
requires a public hearing without first holding the public hearing. She asked the Commissioners how they could
make this resolution a condition of transfer before holding a public
hearing. She asked if by signing a
prior agreement the two bodies had already decided the outcome of the hearing,
and, if so, why were they all there?
Ms. Council questions if the
process was legal, asking why is the process not arbitrary and unduly
discriminatory. She added that it would
be just as bad to go back over to the inactive landfill on Eubanks Road because
those who live near one live near the other and they deserve a chance to
recover. Ms. Council said that using
this land for a transfer station closes hope for better uses. She said that the Council’s assurances are
empty without its vote for denial, which would be the last chance to change
directions.
Fred Simon, who lives within
1,000 feet of the Greene Tract, requested answered to the following:
·
What exactly is a a materials handling district?
·
What are the materials?
·
Are they toxic, sooty, and/or smelly?
·
Do they attract big birds, or mice, or breed mosquitoes?
·
Is the material large, small, wet, or dry?
·
Would it be permanently or briefly stashed on the site?
·
Inside or outside?
·
What kind of building is proposed?
·
Would the building be noisy?
·
Would it have bright lights?
·
What about the impact on traffic?
·
Why does the County need sixty acres?
·
How will this facility affect nearby neighborhoods?
·
Could the land be put to a better more productive use as a
revenue-producing asset or a recreational area?
·
How does the proposal fit in with the Northwest Area
Development Plan?
Mr. Simon suggested that the
elected officials take care not to squander a long-term resource for a
short-term accommodation.
Janice Putnam reported that many
who live near the landfill had not received notification of the meeting,
probably due to the snowstorm. Noting
that residents had filed a protest petition, Ms. Putnam said that the
Governor’s office had announced that the State needs a million acres of greenspace. She pointed out that this would mean about
1,000 acres per county.
Ms. Putnam explained that water
line construction on Rogers Road is long overdue, but added that, in fairness,
everyone equidistant to the landfill should have a water line provided to
them. She asked why the buffer could
not be enlarged to 200-500 feet if 10-12 acres is all that is needed for
materials handling. Ms. Putnam asked
people in the audience to hold up their sheets of paper which read “No
Materials Handling.” Ms. Putnam
commented that there would be a fight if the Commissioners did not change their
vote on this issue.
Judy Nunn Snipes, speaking for
her mother Gertrude Nunn and the rest of her family in the Eubanks/Rogers Road
neighborhood, stated that her family had carried the burden of the landfill
since 1972. She said that she had been
barred from building a home on 200 acres of
land that had been in her family since 1862. Ms. Nunn said that this was environmentally unjust, and asked the
Town Council not to rezone the area and to correct the wrongs of the past.
Commissioner Carey restated his
opinion that a materials handling facility would not include burial on the
site.
Scott Radway, who had helped the
City of Durham with its landfill research, said that he was not opposed to
these materials handling activities per se, but asked if placing a facility on
the Greene Tract would be the best use of that property. He commented that there must be better and
more socially correct locations. Mr.
Radway criticized the process and recommended bringing back a plan for Town
review rather than putting the burden on the Town Manager to defend the
decision.
Chapel Hill resident and social
activist Ruby Seinreich labeled the decision to rezone the land as
environmental racism. She said that if
the Town Council were really concerned about the landfill’s neighbors, there
would be no reason to sign the agreement.
Ms. Seinreich asked the Council to make a decision that does not further
burden the Rogers Road neighborhood with waste.
Dawn Gerakaris, a Bilabong Lane
resident, asked the Council to be “good stewards of God’s county,” and to
consider how they would vote if this land were their children’s inheritance, if
the Town were about to build a materials handling district in their backyards.
Alvin Scott, who lives at the
west boundary of the Greene Tract, described it as odd that this is the only
location that could be found in such a large county to build a materials
handling facility. He stated that there
had been no effort to find another location, such as in the middle of some
40-acre farm where it would hardly bother anybody compared to the numbers who
would be affected around the Greene Tract area.
Mr. Scott said that he had
visited a similar transfer station in Durham, and expressed doubt that many Council
members had done so. He said that the
Durham facility hauls 1,000 tons per day out of that area, which means 286,000
tons a year. Mr. Scott said it costs
them $500,000 per month to do this, and added that it would be expensive even
if they put a MIRF station in there and eliminated the recyclables.
Mr. Scott asked why the Town
would even consider allowing this facility in the midst of a heritage class of
people, on a valuable piece of property that could have much better uses. He noted that it is in the middle of a
residential area, which includes $300,000 homes that were recently built based
on the promise that the Eubanks landfill was ending.
Warren J. Harding criticized the
Chapel Hill news media for not having done a better job of alerting those
outside the immediate neighborhood about this resolution. He said that he had gotten his information
from the Raleigh News and Observer. He
noted that there were plans for 287 homes at Parkside II, which would be within
the 1,000 feet of the proposed station.
Mr. Harding stated that it was
true that a transfer station is not a landfill—because landfills are
lined. He said that he could not see
how the Town could keep toxic materials out of the water supply, and asked if
the FAA had been notified that a transfer station was being considered near the
Horace Williams Airport. Mr. Harding
noted that his concerns were minor compared to the complaints of those on
Rogers Road. He implored the Town
Council to vote against the rezoning.
Martin Rody said that the
Northwest Area Plan, which he helped to develop, intended to have a nucleus of
development in one location, which would be served by mass transit. He explained that the Greene Tract is in the
middle of that planned neoclassical town.
Mr. Rody recalled that developers of the Northwest Area Plan tried to be
fiscally responsible and concentrated development in that location because it
could be served by transit sometime in the future. Because of the density and diversity of activity that would happen
there, he explained, the land would become very valuable.
Mr. Rody argued that Chapel Hill
needs something other than residential properties in its tax base because
residents of Chapel Hill cannot afford more residential development. He stated that the Town needs diversity in
the tax base, adding that the only way to achieve this is by increasing the
density. Mr. Rody pointed out that many
organizations in Town and the County could use this land for other purposes. He asked Council members to stick with the
plan and to try and develop it so that it becomes an asset to the community.
Larry Reid stated that the
question of why the Town is rezoning this property for a materials handling
station had not been adequately answered and justified.
Watts Scott, whose property is
attached to the south end of the Greene Tract, explained that he had lived
there since 1959, when it was called “the Byrd Tract.” He recalled that Mr. Greene had wanted to
develop that tract and was turned down by the County Commissioners. He said that the Town had then purchased it
and changed its name to the Greene Tract.
Mr. Scott stated that he is 83
years old. He said that he had been
fighting against landfills for the last 28 years, adding that his neighborhood
had been held in captivity by County and Town governments. He asked the Town to release them from
captivity and to allow them to have an opportunity to enjoy some of the things
that Council Members are enjoying far away from garbage facilities.
Louis Taff, who is a new Chapel
Hill resident, noted that the Interlocal Agreement seems to be the source of
pressure to adopt this resolution. He
read a section from the Agreement which he said he found “most objectionable”: “The County will have ongoing authority and
ability in its discretion to administer and operate the system in accordance
with the solid waste management plan and policies and to determine and modify
the solid waste plan and policies from time to time.”
Mr. Taff said that this basically
meant that the Town would not care what the County does on that land. He noted that the Agreement also says, “the
County shall acquire real and personal property as it deems appropriate for
system purposes…There shall be no restrictions on the County’s acquisition of
additional acreage at the existing landfill.”
Mr. Taff asked why this had been adopted and why there had been no
public hearing.
Comments by Elected
Officials
Council Member Brown stated that
the rezoning of the Greene Tract for materials handling is clearly in conflict
with the previous Neville Tract Agreement, copies of which she
distributed. She said that it seemed
clear that people in the immediate neighborhood and throughout the County were
opposed to the rezoning.
Council Member Brown added that
it also seemed clear that most people would like to see a portion of the Greene
Tract remain as a natural area. She
suggested removing the Greene Tract from the Interlocal Agreement, going forth
with the transfer of solid waste activities to the County, and dropping the
rezoning application.
COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO MOVED,
SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TO REFER ALL
COMMENTS TO THE TOWN MANAGER AND TOWN ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-1).
COUNTY COMMISSIONER ALICE GORDON
MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNTY COMMISSIONER BARRY JACOBS, TO REFER ALL COMMENTS TO
THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FOR A RECOMMENDATION, TO COME BACK NO LATER
THAN MARCH 14, 2000.
Commissioner Carey said that this
concluded the County Commissioners’ participation tonight, since they were not
required to be part of the second public hearing. He added, though, that Commissioners could stay if they
wished.
Item 2 - Public Hearing on a Development Ordinance
Text Amendment: Materials Handling District
Bufferyard
Mr. Waldon explained that one
district in the Chapel Hill’s Development Ordinance is called “the materials
handling district,” which has in its definition a description of required
buffers. He said that the current
language calls for a 200-foot landscaped bufferyard around the perimeter of any
such facility. Mr. Waldon explained
that the current proposal was to change that to a 100-foot buffer between any
proposed materials handling facility and any adjacent residential land
use. He said that the staff’s
preliminary recommendation was to adopt the amendment.
Planning Board Chair Gay Eddy
reported that the Board had voted (7-0) to change the buffer to 100 feet, but
suggested that it be 100 feet around the entire materials handling district,
just as it is for everything else in its Development Ordinance. Ms. Eddy reported that the Board had been
especially concerned about preserving all of the options on the railroad track.
Reverend Robert Campbell asked
why the Town would want to diminish a buffer that had been designed to contain
a specific area. He requested that the
buffer remain as it is on the books, and asked Officials to explain why they
wanted to change it. Reverend Campbell
noted that residents, again, did not have enough information to make an
educated statement about this issue.
Janice Putnam stated that the
200-foot buffer would not be deep enough, and suggested that it be 500 feet.
She stated that the neighborhood had filed a petition asking that the buffer be
200-feet or larger, even though they oppose any rezoning of the Greene Tract.
Arlin Scott stated that there had
been 300 feet of buffer when he moved to the west side of the Green Tract. He pointed out that he did not have enough
information to know whether he was going to have a buffer next to his house or
not. Mr. Scott said that if the County
cannot find any other place to put the waste disposal then he would ask that
the buffer be wider than 200 feet.
Judy Nunn Snipes explained that
the Neville Tract was a huge hole in the earth where dirt had been removed to
cover the present landfill. She said
that 200 feet would not be enough of a buffer, adding that she could not say
what would be enough to protect her family, which is surrounded by an inactive
landfill, an active landfill, and a Duke Power substation. Ms. Snipes asked Council members to have
empathy and not consider building the station on the Greene Tract.
Scott Radway questioned the
language, which says that no landscaped bufferyard was required for
non-residential uses, specifically including railroad corridors. He said that this would be “illogical,”
given the amount of interest there is in Town in using the rail corridor for
passengers, bike paths, wildlife, and other activities. Mr. Radway asked how the Town would reconcile
single-family uses having to have a great buffer to protect the corridor at the
same time that it would say that we can despoil the area between an industrial
use and the rail corridor.
Mr. Radway asked what
“non-residential land use” means, adding that he assumed it means that whoever
is in charge of the facility there would have the right to clear-cut to the
property line. He suggested that the
Council rethink what they want to buffer from what and not use the term
“non-residential,” which would include everything other than residential.
Larry Reid explained that, as a
building contractor, he was angry because the Council would “laugh out of the
room” any contractor who asked for these regulations. He asked the Council who was “holding the gun” to their
heads. Mr. Reid stated that he had
trouble understanding how elected officials could let this be done to
them. He said that he felt as though
his intelligence was being insulted, and said that he hoped Council members
felt the same way.
Council Member Bateman requested
that one of the County Commissioners explain why the buffer should be reduced
to 100 feet and why it should not be around the entire site. Commissioner Carey replied that the County Commissioners
had wanted to ensure that they had as much of the site as possible available
for use. He added that having the
buffer along the railroad would preclude the potential use of the railroad for
shipping and handling if the County chose to use the site for a materials
handling facility. Commissioner Carey
also said that a 200-foot buffer would require that 50-60% of the site not be
used.
Council Member Foy suggested
hearing from the staff when this comes back about whether the Council needs to
change the buffer in order to go forward with the Interlocal Agreement or
whether this portion could be delayed until after they make the other decisions
and the Agreement is fully implemented.
Council Member Foy said that it would be useful, once the 60-acre parcel
had been identified, for the County and staff to look specifically at that
parcel on a map and see how the 200-foot, 100-foot, and no buffer at all would
work.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED,
SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO REFER COMMENTS TO THE TOWN MANAGER AND THE
TOWN ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED
UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30
p.m.