<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Washington Politics in Weddington</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.unioncountyweekly.com/opinion/2011/09/washington-politics-in-weddington/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.unioncountyweekly.com/opinion/2011/09/washington-politics-in-weddington/</link>
	<description>About the community, for the community</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2013 21:49:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Craig Hurt</title>
		<link>http://www.unioncountyweekly.com/opinion/2011/09/washington-politics-in-weddington/#comment-381</link>
		<dc:creator>Craig Hurt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Sep 2011 03:17:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.unioncountyweekly.com/?p=3997#comment-381</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There has been much debate about the proposed water tower. As a resident of the Providence Acres subdivision I will be directly affected by the placement of this tower 1,000 ft from my home. As will my neighbors, and surrounding subdivisions. Providence Acres is on well and septic systems and currently do not have access to the county&#039;s water system.

I have attended many Weddington Town Council Meeting and Union County Board of Commissioners meetings regarding the proposed water tower and I have yet to hear anyone say that they &quot;want a tower in their backyard&quot;. It&#039;s been made clear by the response from feedback and previous attempts that this is not the best solution. To the casual observer it&#039;s easy to say &quot;get over it, it&#039;s just a water tower&quot;. Until it&#039;s right behind your home and reduces YOUR property value. 

There is a plan available to put a low level ground storage tank system in place. It&#039;s affect on the surrounding areas would be minimal. Yes, it&#039;s more expensive. But the facts are that Union County has set precedent by capping the waste water treatment tanks and installing air scrubbers at the 12 Mile Creek WWTF in Waxhaw. In 2008 Union County spent $4.7 million dollars to eliminate the smell for the residents surrounding this site. A site that was built, and operational prior to the land being developed around it. 
Weddington&#039;s leaders denied the rezoning of the county&#039;s PRIMARY location because it did not meet all the specific 5 criteria as stated by the land use guide. Also because of heavy pressure from Weddington Methodist Church. Once this site was voted down, the council then changed the rules and voted to eliminate the 5 criteria requirement. Meaning they changed the rules. So the next site on the list, not the best site, just the the next site didn&#039;t stand a chance. Does this sound straightforward? Is this how you would like to be treated if you had a concern about your home and it&#039;s value? 

The current site is surrounded by R-40/RCD zoned property, meaning residential communities. We live, pay taxes and spend money in this town just like everyone else. Shouldn&#039;t our voices be heard?
I am not opposed to a water tank system being placed on this site. Our neighbors in Rose Hill should be provided adequate water pressure. This is a equitable solution that solves many problems. 
The Weddington Town Council has a chance to make this right on Monday September 19th at 6:00 p.m during the town council meeting. There is a motion to review and possibly rescind the vote for the water tower. I encourage the town council to deny the zoning for this site. And work with the county to build a tank storage system. In my opinion, this is a county issue, and should be paid for by the users. The county&#039;s enterprise fund is revenue from users after costs for delivery of the water are paid. It exists for capital improvement projects, just like this. To be clear, it is not a tax based account. Only the people that use the water pay into this account. It has also been stated that using this money would not likely result in a fee increase.

This issue will return to Weddington in the near future. The director of public works has stated that will be a need for additional storage throughout the system...meaning another tower. Next time it could be you.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There has been much debate about the proposed water tower. As a resident of the Providence Acres subdivision I will be directly affected by the placement of this tower 1,000 ft from my home. As will my neighbors, and surrounding subdivisions. Providence Acres is on well and septic systems and currently do not have access to the county&#8217;s water system.</p>
<p>I have attended many Weddington Town Council Meeting and Union County Board of Commissioners meetings regarding the proposed water tower and I have yet to hear anyone say that they &#8220;want a tower in their backyard&#8221;. It&#8217;s been made clear by the response from feedback and previous attempts that this is not the best solution. To the casual observer it&#8217;s easy to say &#8220;get over it, it&#8217;s just a water tower&#8221;. Until it&#8217;s right behind your home and reduces YOUR property value. </p>
<p>There is a plan available to put a low level ground storage tank system in place. It&#8217;s affect on the surrounding areas would be minimal. Yes, it&#8217;s more expensive. But the facts are that Union County has set precedent by capping the waste water treatment tanks and installing air scrubbers at the 12 Mile Creek WWTF in Waxhaw. In 2008 Union County spent $4.7 million dollars to eliminate the smell for the residents surrounding this site. A site that was built, and operational prior to the land being developed around it.<br />
Weddington&#8217;s leaders denied the rezoning of the county&#8217;s PRIMARY location because it did not meet all the specific 5 criteria as stated by the land use guide. Also because of heavy pressure from Weddington Methodist Church. Once this site was voted down, the council then changed the rules and voted to eliminate the 5 criteria requirement. Meaning they changed the rules. So the next site on the list, not the best site, just the the next site didn&#8217;t stand a chance. Does this sound straightforward? Is this how you would like to be treated if you had a concern about your home and it&#8217;s value? </p>
<p>The current site is surrounded by R-40/RCD zoned property, meaning residential communities. We live, pay taxes and spend money in this town just like everyone else. Shouldn&#8217;t our voices be heard?<br />
I am not opposed to a water tank system being placed on this site. Our neighbors in Rose Hill should be provided adequate water pressure. This is a equitable solution that solves many problems.<br />
The Weddington Town Council has a chance to make this right on Monday September 19th at 6:00 p.m during the town council meeting. There is a motion to review and possibly rescind the vote for the water tower. I encourage the town council to deny the zoning for this site. And work with the county to build a tank storage system. In my opinion, this is a county issue, and should be paid for by the users. The county&#8217;s enterprise fund is revenue from users after costs for delivery of the water are paid. It exists for capital improvement projects, just like this. To be clear, it is not a tax based account. Only the people that use the water pay into this account. It has also been stated that using this money would not likely result in a fee increase.</p>
<p>This issue will return to Weddington in the near future. The director of public works has stated that will be a need for additional storage throughout the system&#8230;meaning another tower. Next time it could be you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
