Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Approved 113107 <br />D(O <br />formal comment on this issue. I was also informed that I could make comments to the Planning Board <br />and the BOCC at their upcoming meetings that will address this topic. My comments are below. <br />1. It appears that this is in actuality a Hillsborough-Efland Buffer and additional <br />consideration to the deliberations of the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan may be <br />appropriate. <br />2. The western boundary of the proposed buffer seems arbitrarily drawn at the I-85-70 <br />connector. This 44ane road offers great opportunity to the county as a potential <br />mixed use development that could attract commercial development and contribute to <br />county revenue. Without the ability to determine the "developable area" in the <br />parcel(s) immediately east of the connector after consideration is given to current <br />county ordinances related to open space and buffers, a decision regarding this border <br />of the buffer does not appear to be in the best interests of the county. <br />3. Without additional information, I am concerned about the buffer boundary south of I- <br />85. <br />Sincerely, <br />Noah Ranells <br />4122 Buckhorn Road <br />Efland, NC 27243 <br />Craig Benedict said that the line is drawn farther south than presently exists, and this is consistent with <br />what the Efland-Mebane Task Force said, to move this line out of a portion of downtown Efland that has <br />more development potential. <br />Brian Crawford said that he has been part of the Efland-Mebane Task Force, and all of the comments <br />were related to the water quality critical area that still remain in that location. He said that there was <br />never any discussion about this being removed and another type of buffer coming in. He said that these <br />questions are related to a buffer around Hillsborough. He said that the Efland-Mebane Task Force, when <br />talking about pushing the line south, was talking about leaving the remainder of it in water quality critical <br />area, with the idea that it was still a possible reservoir. If it is not a reservoir, then the critical area lines <br />would disappear. He thinks that it is the location of the lines for the rural buffer that are being questioned, <br />not the critical area. <br />Ben Lloyd asked if there were any public comments allowed. <br />Jay Bryan said that he understands that the public hearing was closed at the end of the November 20th <br />meeting, but that people were allowed to submit written comments for consideration. There will be no <br />further public comment. <br />Craig Benedict said that written comments can come forward. <br />Jeff Schmitt said that if there are additional citizen comments relating to the lines, he thinks that the <br />Planning Board should be able to review these comments. <br />Motion made by Sam Lasris, seconded by Jeff Schmitt to continue this discussion to the January 3rd <br />meeting to allow for written comments. <br />Craig Benedict said that at the November 20th meeting, there were instructions to the public to provide <br />comments to the Planning Board for review, to be returned back to the Board of County Commissioners