Dozens of county residents pressed the Alamance County Board of Commissioners during public comment to oppose a proposed landfill on Clap Mill/Claphamille Road, saying the site would depress home prices and offer little economic benefit to the county.

"Deleting one public comment session per month and having only invited guests speak at the work session is unacceptable," Harry Porterhouse said, arguing procedural changes would limit residents' access to the board. Porterhouse and other speakers tied their procedural objections to the landfill debate, saying residents need timely opportunities to raise concerns.

Carol Davis, who said the county's assessment places nearby homes at nearly $4.3 million in total, told commissioners the proposed landfill parcel is assessed at about $308,000. "For the long term financial health of Alamance County, this proposed landfill doesn't add up," Davis said, arguing that falling residential assessments would shrink county revenue and outweigh any direct gains from the landfill site.

Other neighbors described quality-of-life threats. Bob Kushner, who lives adjacent to the proposed site, said the expansion could reduce his home's resale value. Robin Hart and Joe Snyder described traffic, noise and the loss of the neighborhood's rural character; Snyder said he spoke with 20 to 30 neighbors and that many have considered moving if the landfill proceeds.

Commissioners did not immediately vote on the landfill during the meeting. Commissioners and staff acknowledged environmental and planning questions and said the board would continue to consider the permitting and review process. Several officials also said they heard the public's concerns and that those would be considered as staff and the board evaluate any formal applications.

The meeting record shows multiple residents voiced both procedural and substantive objections to the landfill, citing property values, potential reassessments and community character. No formal board decision on the landfill was recorded at the meeting; residents asked the board to direct staff to re-evaluate the relevant procedural draft and to ensure public comment opportunities remain frequent.