Agenda - 04-20-2021; 8-a - Minutes

Browse Search

5 1 2 Janine Zanin showed a copy of the letter received by her neighbor. She continued 3 reading her comments: 4 5 My neighbor received it because she owns a home within Growth Area B. I did not receive a 6 letter, nor did any of my neighbors. Our neighborhood is sandwiched between Growth Areas B 7 & C. Craig Benedict said: "For the public info meeting that was a joint letter that came from the 8 county for November 7th and 8th. One was with the Planning Board and one was public 9 information. Jointly signed and sent from Mebane, Piedmont and the County." 10 11 As you can see from the letter my neighbor received, the letter announcing the Planning Board 12 meeting and the public info session came from Cy Stober, City of Mebane. And it was dated 13 October 28th and I believe it arrived at our neighbor's home in early November, days before the 14 planning board meeting. 15 16 Landowners within1000 feet of the future growth areas did get notice of the City Council 17 meeting in December. I received that notice as did my neighbors. But we were not invited to the 18 public information session. 19 20 INVESTMENT: 21 You heard during that meeting that the future growth areas are not immediately actionable. 22 They require further investment .... let's think critically about where to invest. And let's not limit 23 our reflections to the investment we've made in sewer lines. We've also invested county dollars 24 in the middle school, the soccer fields, and the Seven Mile Creek Nature Preserve and we 25 should preserve those investments as well. 26 27 Patty O'Connor read the following letter: 28 Good evening commissioners, 29 It wasn't my intent to speak at this meeting or for that matter, even attend it---until I heard the 30 Orange County Planning Board chair, Mr. Blankford speak at your March 9th meeting. And the 31 alarm bells went off. 32 33 1 found it curious that Mr. Blankford reported that with the last two MPD-CZ zoning requests, no 34 one on either side was willing to compromise. He seemed to view the many citizen concerns as 35 complaints, designed to interfere with a unanimous decision to proceed. Several of you duly 36 noted that conflict can easily arise out of poor communication, and a lack of transparency. 1 37 hope Mr. Blankford made note of those comments and took them to heart. However, I am 38 curious about who he was speaking of and why he thinks compromise is even in order when 39 you're talking about burying 240 thousand gallons of gasoline on a protected watershed. There 40 was plenty of compromise offered—it simply didn't involve threatening our community's water. It 41 did involve making plans for the Efland community with the current zoning laws in place and 42 some type of sustainable development that would have positive impacts and retain the rural 43 character of the community. I'm not sure why he didn't see that. 44 45 1 bring this up now because here we are again, with the BAP on the table and the same 46 community water involved. In my estimation, Mebane seems eager to proceed with industrial 47 development and annexation. And it's evident that the OC planning board and planning 48 department don't fully appreciate the genuine and indisputable value of our water and perhaps, 49 other natural resources—if they did, Buc-ee's would never have gotten the first green light. 50 So we don't go down the same (Beaver) trail, I respectfully ask that you hang onto the reins and 51 give specific direction and guidance to both the Planning Board and the Planning Department