|
Jeff Davis photos
Bennett School at
center of court case . . .
Approximately two
dozen parents of Bennett School students who live in
Randolph County have brought a civil action against the
Chatham County Board of Education claiming a recent board
decision restricting the enrollment of their children is
illegal. The parents say the board’s action violates not
only tradition but also state law and previous county
decisions.
Sides differ on reasons behind Bennett decision
By
Bob Wachs
The
two parties involved in a lawsuit filed last week about
Randolph County students attending Bennett School see the
matter in substantially different lights.
On
one hand are a group of approximately 20 parents who live in
Randolph County and whose children attend Bennett School. On
the other hand are the Chatham County Board of Education and
school superintendent Ann Hart.
At
the core of the suit is the question of whether those
children should be allowed to remain or, in some cases,
initially enroll at Bennett or not. The parents say, "yes,"
pointing out that has been the case in that southwestern
Chatham County community, which locals contend extends
across the nearby Chatham-Randolph county line, for more
than 70 years.
Meanwhile, the board of education, in a January revision to
its policy number 8200, says the issue has to do with growth
in the county and an attempt to treat all communities,
schools and children the same.
The
Bennett residents have appeared at several recent board of
education meetings, pleading their case and asking the board
to honor an agreement made between the two counties in 1931
in which Bennett School was created by those two counties to
serve the area.
more- See Thursday, Feb 9
paper:
Vol 86, No. 11
With closing of post office, Bynum's
identity at stake
By Randall Rigsbee
Bynum, the small, former mill village on the Haw River a few
miles north of Pittsboro, may lose more than just a hundred
or so post office boxes when the Bynum Post Office closes
next month.
It may lose a part of its identity.
Jerry Partin, who operates the Bynum General Store, has said
he will close the post office inside his store at the end of
March, saying it is too time-consuming and costly to
operate.
So the Bynum residents who for years have received their
mail at the store are scrambling to find an alternative
location.
They may – as many Bynum residents already do – have a
mailbox at their residence and receive home mail delivery.
But the drawback to that, according to US Post Office
officials, is that those residents who receive home delivery
have a Pittsboro – not a Bynum – address.
Currently, Bynum has its own zip code of 27228.
If the post office boxes in Bynum disappear, so does the
Bynum zip code.
“It gives Bynum a sense of place that would be lost if Bynum
loses its zip code,” said Walter Harris, a Bynum native.
Harris met with the Chatham County Board of Commissioners on
Monday to ask the county’s help in keeping the Bynum zip
code alive.
Harris said Bynum residents have been looking for a location
where the post office can build a kiosk for mail delivery
similar to the mail box kiosk at Fearrington Village.
more- See Thursday, Feb 9
paper:
Vol 86, No. 11 |
|
|
Siler City
board sends noise rules back for revision
By Joseph Pardington
It looks as though it is back to the drawing board for Siler
City’s proposed revision of the noise ordinance.
Siler City Board members on Monday discussed the proposed
deletions, additions and clarifications with Mayor Charles Turner
and the town attorney William Morgan.
Town board members were unhappy with the proposed wording of the
revised ordinance, especially the deletion of any guidelines for
home or business repair during the week.
The existing noise ordinance specifically describes certain noises
that are regulated. For example, “To erect, excavate, demolish,
alter or repair any building in a residential or business district
other than between the hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m., on weekdays,
except in the case of urgent necessity in the interest of public
safety.”
The previous phrase was among those chosen for deletion, based on
a previous board meeting in November.
Board members told Morgan they wanted the phrase re-inserted into
the ordinance, but they wanted the word “weekday” struck from the
wording.
Sam Adams, Siler City Board member, said, “I don’t think we should
take (out) the whole thing. I’m concerned that people would be
building at 9 p.m. or later.”
John Grimes, Siler City’s mayor pro-tem, discussed the need for
people to be able to repair their businesses and homes after
returning from work. He said he thought the 6 p.m. noise cut-off
was too early.
Grimes was
also concerned about a resident’s right to appeal. “Is there any
recourse for individuals or businesses to appeal?” he asked.
Joel Brower, Siler City’s town manager responded that people could
go before the judge to appeal. Brower praised the revisions in the
noise ordinance regarding automobile noise, and then he read the
proposed addition to the automobile noise prohibition: “to operate
any motorized vehicle with a muffler that is constructed or built
to intentionally emit an unreasonably loud, annoying, or
disturbing sound.”
Turner recalled his recent experience with automobile noise.
“One came by my house the other night,” he said. “I thought I was
going to have to tape up the windows.”
Turner briefly spoke about the some of the items in the noise
ordinance. “Sometimes we can make too many policies. People have
to live.”
more- See Thursday, Feb 9
paper:
Vol 86, No. 11
Reservoir permit nearing
By Joseph Pardington
Joel Brower, Siler City’s town manager, on Monday said the town is
just around the corner from getting a permit to begin the Lower
Rocky River Reservoir Expansion Project.
“There’s a lot of corners to this building, but it’s almost done,”
Brower said of the final piece of the puzzle for the reservoir
project.
John Thomas, project manager with the United States Army Corps of
Engineers echoed Brower’s words.
Thomas said he thought the permit would have been granted in
December, but he would not predict the actual date of permit
approval.
At issue is mitigation for the project he said. Mitigation is a
kind of environmental compensation that is divided into two major
categories—stream mitigation and wetlands mitigation, Thomas said.
Siler City paid a fee to the State of North Carolina to provide
stream mitigation, he said. The North Carolina Environmental
Enhancement Program provides environmental credits for the
Carbonton Dam removal project, Thomas said.
“(Siler City) has paid a fee to the state of North Carolina and
the state has agreed to provide the necessary (stream)
mitigation,” Thomas said.
Even if the Carbonton project fails, Siler City would be okay,
Thomas said. It would then be up to the State of North Carolina to
make up the difference else where for the necessary stream
mitigation, Thomas said.
The Rocky River Reservoir’s wetlands mitigation involves on-site
mitigation, and mitigation on land in Randolph County, Thomas
said.
“The hold up is (Siler City’s) on-site mitigation. Siler City is
creating wetlands on-site,” Thomas said.
“They are on track,” Thomas said of Siler City’s efforts. “It’s a
two-year process and they are in the final stages of the
mitigation of the project.”
The two-year process involves a checklist that includes the stated
purpose of the project and alternatives to the project, Thomas
said. In addition, Siler City had to detail avoidance and
mitigation of environmental impact, Thomas said.
At this point in the process, the final details of the reservoir
are being worked out, Thomas said. Lawyers are now involved in the
project, he said.
|
