Agenda - 06-03-2008-5b5e - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

~~-3 EFLAND-MEBANE SMALL AREA PLAN INFORMATION Below are P1ammlg Staff s responses to the e-mail inquiry sent on May 9, 2008 by Planning Board member Michelle Kernpinski. These questions relate to the Efland- Mebane Small Area Plan (EMSAP) adopted by the BOCC in June 2006. Recommendations within the document are being implemented and pursued through collaborative efforts of the community and elected officials. The plan did not suggest any change in land use for the existing Economic Development District where Buckhorn Village is proposed to be located. Applications are reviewed within the existing plalniing constructs that have supported the adopted future land use plan for the area (see Plamung in Cheeks Township, OC Planning May 2008). 1. * One of the EMSAP recommendations was that the County work with the City of Mebane to establish an interlocal agreement that would provide a land use buffer between the City' (and it's continued annexation eastward into the County) and the Efland community. As well, the EMSAP states "The City of Mebane's growth within Orange County in recent years has been a concern to county government because of the impacts the growth has on county operations such as public schools, social services, transportation, and emergency services." Since the adoption of the plan in 2006, has there been any progress to establish this interlocal agreement with Mebane for the Efland area? Staff Response: The SAP does not state that a formal land use buffer would attempt to be negotiated with the City of Mebane but rather that a growth boundary agreement might be a possible solution. The plan contains a recommendation of page 76 that the City of Mebane and Orange-Alamance Water System should be invited to become signatories to the Water and Sewer Management and Planning Boundary Agreement (WSMPBA) to define and agree to foreseeable limits to water and sewer services. On page 77, the Plan states that that two governments should work cooperatively to create and agree to a Joint Planning Understanding or Agreement; this was not intended to imply that such anUnderstanding/Agreement would follow the Agreement between Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro which established a formal Rural Buffer in the southeastern portion of the County. Orange County officials have met with City of Mebane officials since adoption of the plan (as well as in the years prior to 2006). To date, the City of Mebane has not shown a significant inclination to enter into a written agreement with Orange County but periodic meetings between elected officials and management staffs continue to be held to discuss issues of mutual concern. 2. * As the EMSAP states...Efland residents have expressed concerns over the amount of time the sewer proj ect (first initiated in 1984) has taken to implement. The need for a long range Master Plan and associated funding sources for water and sewer service has been discussed for areas of Efland (both on the 'unadopted' 1984 Sewer Plan and the Adopted 2001 Sewer Plan) that lie outside of the Economic Development district.