Key Points from PE Meeting 7/8/2005 - (9:30 AM to 10:30 AM)
Attendees: Marty Clayton - Manager of Community Relations, Tom Trocheck - Director of Land
Management, Dave Bristol (NHCA) and Paul Barth (NHCA)
* Dave explained current situation and provided background information including history of
New Hill condemnations and impact to our community
* Dave also explained to Marty and Tom that in fact PE sites were the top 3 sites in TM 8.0,
and would have been the top 4 if not for an error found by a New Hill resident
* PE has never been formerly asked by Cary for property to cite a sewage plant
* Tom Trocheck was approached by Tommy Esquada (Cary project leader) earlier this year
about a gaining access to PE property to plan for possible easement for running pipe lines
through PE property to Haw River below Buckhorn Dam for treated water discharge. Tommy
Esquada never asked about gaining access to PE property for possible sewage plant citing
* on June 20, Marty Clayton had meeting with a person from Cary (didn't give a name).
During meeting, Marty was told that PE property was not in top 3 sites so didn't need to ask PE if
their land was available for purchase.
* PE understands our concerns but would not voluntarily offer land. However, we were told
that if Cary wanted PE property that PE would have told Cary that it was not for sale.
Condemnation of PE property would need to occur but this happens all the time. PE would have
worked with Cary to identify property of least impact to PE future growth plans. PE usually
does not put up a legal battle in cases such as this due to potential negative image to PE. A legal
battle by PE should not be a factor that Cary would need to be concerned over.
* when talking again about PE land not being for sale they said it is being held for future
power generation needs. Paul mentioned that the land condemned by PE was initially for 4
reactors with no cooling tower and only 1 reactor was built. Marty responded that rules have
changed regarding how close one reactor can be to another (we should try to get verification on
what those rules are). Also, while they are planning for future generational needs, they don't have
any firm plans, and thus could not say where another reactor might be located or what the other
land might be used for. Our perspective is the "future generational needs" is a convenient excuse
and that if Cary moved forward with condemning PE land the PE folks would quickly find a site
that didn't impact future generational needs.
* PE understands that we will continue to push for citing of sewage plant on PE property
Thanks...
Paul Barth, President of New Hill Community Association
|