Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
103 <br />Cy Stober, City of Mebane Development Director, explained that the Buckhorn Rd improvement described is not 104 <br />currently funded or planned and that plans for that area have taken into consideration the churches and historic sites 105 <br />in that area as well. He further explained that the City of Mebane does not have a history of eminent domain and they 106 <br />have no interest in starting to do so. 107 <br /> 108 <br />Beverly Stokes wanted to confirm that there are no plans for property to be taken via eminent domain and that none 109 <br />of the historical buildings will be displaced. 110 <br /> 111 <br />Nishith Trivedi explained that the plan has no construction or funding involved and that historical landmarks were 112 <br />taken into consideration during the 2017 study. 113 <br /> 114 <br />Debra Elmore expressed concerns about lack of communication in Orange County from the City of Mebane 115 <br /> 116 <br />Lydia Wegman explained that there are certain requirements regarding public notification on the County’s behalf and 117 <br />recommended that Cy Stober take back Debra Elmore’s comments to the City of Mebane. 118 <br /> 119 <br />Steven Ramarge asked if Orange County has received any plans from developers for the Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane 120 <br />area 121 <br /> 122 <br />Tom Altieri explained that there have been no development proposals to date in the area mentioned and if a 123 <br />developer comes in with plans for that area that there would be an opportunity for the public to comment on the 124 <br />proposed development and any road improvements. 125 <br /> 126 <br />John Bannon had questions regarding the 100ft MTC buffer requirement for property that is adjacent to the interstate 127 <br />and the requirements of being a developer in relation to the Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan. 128 <br /> 129 <br />Tom Altieri advised that the issues raised involve the current planning division and existing requirements that go 130 <br />along with what may be an application submitted by John Bannon. 131 <br /> 132 <br />Lydia Wegman suggested that a subsequent meeting happen between John Bannon and the Planning Department. 133 <br /> 134 <br />Jean Forrest Brooks objects to the plan because she has concern for property she owns and the people who will be 135 <br />displaced from the plan 136 <br /> 137 <br />Randy Marshall explained that unless Jean Forrest Brooks choses to sell her property to a developer her property will 138 <br />not be touched 139 <br /> 140 <br />Julie Laws also expressed her concern for those who may become displaced if some road improvements mentioned 141 <br />in the plan do occur. 142 <br /> 143 <br />Hunter Spitzer explained that he doesn’t believe it achieves economic objectives 2.2 and 2.3 which state that the plan 144 <br />encourages mixed use projects that support walkability, public transportation, alternative modes of transportation, 145 <br />and encourage carpooling. He further stated that according to the exhibits provided, there does not appear to be 146 <br />many sidewalks and roads that support bicyclist. He objects to those objects as being cited as completed by this 147 <br />plan. 148 <br /> 149 <br />Nishith Trivedi explained the NCDOT road improvement requirements and guidelines and asked if referencing those 150 <br />guidelines in the plan would help address the goals. 151 <br /> 152 <br /> 7