Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
53 <br /> 51 would then need to go through the MPO. He further explained that NCDOT has their own public outreach process <br /> 52 and would be the ones to contact the land owners if road improvements were to happen. <br /> 53 <br /> 54 Robert Jones raised concerns about the various historic churches near Buckhorn Rd.on the Efland-Buckhorn- <br /> 55 Mebane Access Management Plan. <br /> 56 <br /> 57 Nishith Trivedi explained that this area is in the Mebane CTP and the plan is to widen Buckhorn Rd although just <br /> 58 because this is on the Mebane CTP, it doesn't mean the road improvements will actually happen. <br /> 59 <br /> 60 Cy Stober, City of Mebane Development Director, explained that the Buckhorn Rd improvement described is not <br /> 61 currently funded or planned and that plans for that area have taken into consideration the churches and historic sites <br /> 62 in that area as well. He further explained that the City of Mebane does not have a history of eminent domain and they <br /> 63 have no interest in starting to do so. <br /> 64 <br /> 65 Beverly Stokes wanted to confirm that there are no plans for property to be taken via eminent domain and that none <br /> 66 of the historical buildings will be displaced. <br /> 67 <br /> 68 Nishith Trivedi explained that the plan has no construction or funding involved and that historical landmarks were <br /> 69 taken into consideration during the 2017 study. <br /> 70 <br /> 71 Debra Elmore expressed concerns about lack of communication in Orange County from the City of Mebane <br /> 72 <br /> 73 Lydia Wegman explained that there are certain requirements regarding public notification on the County's behalf and <br /> 74 recommended that Cy Stober take back Debra Elmore's comments to the City of Mebane. <br /> 75 <br /> 76 Steven Ramarge asked if Orange County has received any plans from developers for the Ef land-Buckhorn-Mebane <br /> 77 area <br /> 78 <br /> 79 Tom Altieri explained that there have been no development proposals to date in the area mentioned and if a <br /> 80 developer comes in with plans for that area that there would be an opportunity for the public to comment on the <br /> 81 proposed development and any road improvements. <br /> 82 <br /> 83 John Bannon had questions regarding the 100ft MTC buffer requirement for property that is adjacent to the interstate <br /> 84 and the requirements of being a developer in relation to the Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan. <br /> 85 <br /> 86 Tom Altieri advised that the issues raised involve the current planning division and existing requirements that go <br /> 87 along with what may be an application submitted by John Bannon. <br /> 88 <br /> 89 Lydia Wegman suggested that a subsequent meeting happen between John Bannon and the Planning Department. <br /> 90 <br /> 91 Jean Forrest Brooks objects to the plan because she has concern for property she owns and the people who will be <br /> 92 displaced from the plan <br /> 93 <br /> 94 Randy Marshall explained that unless Jean Forrest Brooks choses to sell her property to a developer her property will <br /> 95 not be touched <br /> 96 <br /> 97 Julie Laws also expressed her concern for those who may become displaced if some road improvements mentioned <br /> 98 in the plan do occur. <br /> 99 <br /> 100 Hunter Spitzer explained that he doesn't believe it achieves economic objectives 2.2 and 2.3 which state that the plan <br /> 101 encourages mixed use projects that support walkability, public transportation, alternative modes of transportation, <br />