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

Browse Search

2 1 2 Arts Moment— No Arts Moment was available for this meeting. 3 4 5 2. Public Comments 6 7 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda 8 Janine Zanin read the following comments: 9 My name is Janine Zanin and I live in Efland. First, I want to thank you for the effort and 10 careful consideration that you gave to your deliberations on the Efland Station proposal. I 11 appreciate the way you examined the representations made by the developer about phase 2 12 prospects, electric charging stations, and whether the "park-at-the-pump" model was necessary 13 given the 500+ parking spots for travelers. 14 The developers' responses revealed that they were not the kind of good faith community 15 collaborator they held themselves out to be and, of course, they ultimately decided that they 16 would rather walk away from the deal than be held accountable to their representations. It also 17 became clear to me that THIS Board of County Commissioners is invested in making good 18 decisions about land use in our part of the county. My recent experiences with county 19 government leading up to that meeting had left me with some doubt. 20 Now, I know that many of my neighbors did NOT take away the same impressions from 21 your deliberations. At the same time, a pivotal moment for me was observing what happened 22 when you made the decision to restrict additional public comment on the project. Efland 23 residents still got up to speak, but when they had to speak in generalities instead of speaking 24 about the Efland Station project, it was easy to see that although we had different opinions 25 about Buc-ee's, we shared many of the same desires for our community. That is, we want 26 responsible development that serves the citizens of Efland and we feel we've been overlooked 27 and ignored for far too long. I think that one gentleman said something along the lines of"we 28 want you to shine us up a bit." There also seems to be clear consensus that we are looking for 29 something beyond windowless warehouses. 30 I'm concerned that through its narrow vision of land use planning in this part of the 31 county, and poor communication, that knowingly or unknowingly, the Planning Department has 32 pitted us against each other to accomplish the agenda of the planning director without regard to 33 the opinions of duly elected public officials or Orange County citizens. 34 The less than transparent communication and notice surrounding the Buckhorn Area 35 Plan has been divisive, at times attempting to pit the City of Mebane v. Orange County, 36 residential v. non-residential development, citizens vs. elected officials, incorporated towns vs. 37 unincorporated areas. This either/or view is mainly a symptom of a lack of vision around 38 Economic Development, a lack of creativity, and years of passive or reactive planning. Citizens 39 in this area are energized and want to be proactive. There are land-owners who want to sell or 40 lease their property. Let's come together and move beyond the singular focus on "big game 41 hunting" that has come at the expense of ignoring other local community development needs. It 42 doesn't represent the complete picture of a good quality of life for citizens in Western Orange 43 County. 44 Later tonight, you'll hear about the Buckhorn Area Plan, a study that from its inception 45 had one goal and ONLY one goal in mind: expand the boundaries of the Buckhorn Economic 46 Development District to facilitate more big industrial development. That is, by definition, it was 47 not an objective land use study. In public meetings with the City of Mebane our planning 48 director has consistently repeated that the uses they are looking for are large industrial uses. 49 There's nothing within the plan to definitively limit those uses along the banks of Seven Mile 50 Creek, next door to residential properties, on land that's currently designated critically protected 51 watershed, on the land surrounding our public middle school, and nothing to limit turning West