Agenda - 03-16-2021; 8-a - Minutes

Browse Search

33 1 County would not have held the responsibility of reviewing and adopting/recommending 2 a plan such as this before being presented to Mebane City Council? 3 4 The Mebane Planning Board and City Council have been gracious in considering our input of 5 the Buckhorn Economic Development District. However, as inquiring Orange County residents, 6 we cannot help but feel discounted in our efforts. Point in fact, that they do not owe us 7 representation. To Mebane, Orange County is the driver of this expansion because they quote: 8 "wanted to bring water and sewer out this way," [03Feb21 Mebane Council Meeting] and we 9 should have expected this when we made our investments. 10 11 In every existing future land use map, as current as the 2019 E-B-M AMP, [Efland Buckhorn 12 Mebane Access Management Plan] this economic development district has been clearly 13 delineated between commercial use, and rural residential: discouraging commercial 14 development south of West Ten Rd, citing access to utilities and important watershed 15 protections. There is an obvious need for both municipalities to incorporate mutually agreed 16 upon regulation to protect existing and future residents and our surrounding environment. 17 In the meantime, I look forward to seeing the collaboration of both governing bodies to execute 18 a growth strategy that is thoughtful about how and why economic development should occur, 19 rather than simply where. 20 21 Chair Price lost connection to the meeting at 10:16 p.m. 22 Vice Chair Bedford led the meeting until Chair Price was able to return. 23 24 Fiona Johann read the following statement: 25 Hello, I'm Fiona Johann. I live in Mebane and have been an orange county resident for 20 26 years. I am speaking today in opposition of the Buckhorn Area plan (BAP) as it stands. I speak 27 as someone who has been following this plan progress through the Mebane City Planning 28 Board since the November 9 meeting. 29 30 This plan goes against the Efland/Mebane Small Area Plan, the Orange County 2030 31 Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the Parks and Rec yearly reports. These are the documents 32 that local home buyers had available to them when choosing where to invest their hard earned 33 income while buying homes. All of the aforementioned plans make it clear that the area NORTH 34 of West Ten was slated to be developed into an industrial zone and I assumed, perhaps naively, 35 that Orange County and Mebane City would stick to these plans in fairness to local land owners. 36 The BAP will make it very easy for developers to extend industrial zoning into rural residential 37 areas. Creating a rural industrial zone that none of the neighbors signed up for. What baffles me 38 is why both Orange County and Mebane are looking to extend this industrial area before the 39 land that was previously slated for this type of development has been used to its capacity. I 40 could image in 20 years if or when all that land is actually developed that city and county alike 41 might want to venture outside this area, but why now when there is so much open land available 42 in previously industrial slated growth areas? 43 44 I ask that instead of the BAP as it is currently stands that Orange County and Mebane City 45 come together and create a binding land use plan that encompasses the original industrial 46 growth area, south of highway 70 and north of West Ten Rd, as seen in the 2030 47 comprehensive land use plan. This would provide Orange County residents with assurance that 48 both Orange County and Mebane City must be in agreement before any more properties are 49 annexed to Mebane City and rezoned for industrial use. I would also ask that all the building 50 "recommendations" currently listed in the BAP be made requirements of any developer looking 51 to build. A binding joint land use plan would mean that those of us in the area can count on our