"Not in my backyard" was the message shared by the crowd that gathered in Chapel Hill to discuss the new Orange County Landfill.
About 120 people attended the Thursday night hearing at a Chapel Hill High School to discuss the final four sites currently being considered for construction of a new landfill. Some voiced their opinions to members of the Landfill Owners Group, which is administering the search process.
Although the owners group selected OC-17, a site that contains part of Duke Forest (see graphic, page 15) as their preferred site over the summer, some recently added members of the group wanted to allow discussion of all four sites at the forum.
A final decision on the site could come as early as mid-October, said Don Willhoit, Orange County commissioner and chair of the owners group.
Debate also centered on the credibility of the University's promise to preserve Duke Forest. Some of the opponents of OC-17 said that they trusted the University, which pledged in 1989 to preserve the affected portion of Duke Forest for at least 50 years, more than they trusted county officials.
"Duke University made a promise not to develop. I think they've kept their word. I can't say the same of Orange County officials," said Cecil Jones.
Some residents described other objections to the site.
"OC-17 has acquired a new name: `Trashwood Mountain,'" said Orange County resident Troy Shaw. He said that as a result of the site's soil composition, trash will have to be piled in a heap that could rise to a height of 140 feet, making it the second highest mountain in Orange County.
Shaw and several other speakers said that the site was unfairly represented on the landfill search committee, which recommended OC-17 to the owners group last March. Each of the other 16 sites originally considered had a member on the search committee, but there was no representative from OC-17.
Opponents of OC-17 also accused the owners group of violating a promise made to members of the community living near the existing landfill, which is adjacent to OC-17, to end use of that site and not expand the landfill.
"We were promised that the landfill would be turned into a park," said Cornelius Kirshner.
Some came to the defense of the search committee, arguing that residents should abide by the committee's recommendation.
"How long are these public hearings going to last?" said Patrick Malke, who lives near site OC-2, in southwestern Orange County. "The landfill search committee has done the dirty work of the law. It has taken abuse. I wish you'd go ahead and make a decision."
Malke also recommended exploring other means of waste disposal, another theme that was echoed at the meeting. One speaker, in particular, criticized county residents for failing to recycle enough of their trash.
"We could have done more if we had made recycling mandatory five years ago," said Betty Maltsbie. "We all need to accept responsibility for the need for a new landfill."
Contingents from each of the other three sites also voiced their oppositions to each site. Most opponents of OC-2 said that a new landfill would pose too great a risk to the Orange County reservoir, which supplies the water to two-thirds of the county's residents. Most opponents to sites OC-9 and OC-11 said that the sites would contaminate the Eno River.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.