Agenda - 04-07-2015 - 5a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

W see the people who sat on this committee and made these recommendations. He referenced the discussion about sidewalks and said he does not know how safe walkways would be on highway 70. He asked that this issue remain open. He said the Efland Ruritans would be happy to hold this event in Efland. Doug Efland said he owns property in the Efland village area. He said he has a lot of questions, and he would like this to continue with some sort of public meeting in Efland. He said there are a lot of things that are alarming or hard to understand in the proposed text. He referenced shared right of ways and other parts of the text that he did not understand. He referenced the section on easement agreements between contiguous parcel owners and asked what incentive it is for an adjacent property owner to enter an agreement with you if there are no plans to develop their property. He said there are certainly questions. He questioned the stipulations on connecting roadways to the east and west side of Mount Willing. He asked that this discussion be continued. Ben Lloyd said urban to him is Chapel Hill, Charlotte or New York City. He said Efland is a sleepy little community where most of the residents have been living there all of their lives. He said this small area study has been going on for 20 years and notice of this public hearing was given 15 days ago. He has taken a quick look at this plan, and it would take a lawyer to pick all this stuff out. He said the people in the Efland community need to have the opportunity to have some input into this plan. He asked for an open Efland community meeting, followed by a public hearing for general public input. He said he has a letter from Joseph Forrest and he asked what to do with that. He read the letter and asked it to be entered into the record. Bill Efland said he also agrees with having the hearing in Efland. He asked if the residents are privy to having the names of the people on the Mebane Efland small area plan committee. He asked if there were any Efland family members on that committee and he said he feels that they should have been involved in this process. Commissioner McKee said there were Efland folks on this committee. He said he would share the list of names after the meeting. Lindsey Efland said he has had 40 years of Orange County government saving us from ourselves. He said when all is said and done this language affects approximately ten parcels of land. He said there are only a few developable properties. He said it has also been noted that he community has not been part of the planning process of late. He said this is a significant change for the future of the community and there is not any understandable language as it relates to the re- development of buildings. He feels work needs to be done on this and local input should be involved. He respectfully requests that the public hearing be continued while planning staff works with land owners to help them, and the planning board, understand the full implications of what is going on. Mike Efland questioned how many landowners of involved parcels were on the committee. He wants to know whose brainchild this is. Brian Efland said there are a lot of Eflands from Efland, and he is not aware of any who were on the committee. He feels that stake holders should be involved in these decisions. He noted the large number of community members present, and he said no one who sees this likes it. He would like to see continued discussion in the community. Commissioner McKee said this came before the Board a year ago, and he still does not like it. He feels this should be sent back to staff with instructions to work with the affected community to address their concerns. He said this is not a countywide zoning overlay; it affects a very small number of people in a very big way, and these people need to be involved upfront. He understands there was a public meeting two years ago, but there have been changes made. He does not think the public hearing needs to be held over, but this should be sent back to staff instead.