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

Browse Search

4 1 Instead the task was handed off to county and city staff and we have yet to hear anything about 2 next steps. 3 So I ask again, what is the plan for public engagement? When will the board of commissioners 4 and Mebane City Council be in the same room again and be able to hear the public speak on 5 the matter? If this plan is truly to help those in the area and those that might one day move to it, 6 we need a plan soon. Moving slowly, and by default not having a plan, would be even worse for 7 residents. It would mean that City of Mebane will continue to annex properties as buyers come 8 along and County residents will be surrounded by Mebane city zoning and UDO. Conflicting 9 UDOs mixed together in the same area will lead to many headaches for not only the residents 10 and developers, but also the board of commissioners and Mebane city council. 11 12 In respect to the commissioners' and public's time I will not rehash any of my previously made 13 points in my past public comments, you can read those on the ocbocc public email. I ask that 14 today you hear one thing, we need a plan for public engagement and fast. This plan needs to 15 happen in some fashion, and to talk about land use without public input is irresponsible. The 16 drafted Buckhorn Area Plan itself says, "Public input is important to the success of any planning 17 effort." When will Orange County residents have the time to speak outside of 3-minute public 18 comments? 19 20 Janine Zanin read the following comments: 21 22 My name is Janine Zanin and I live in Efland. It is no secret that our community has been 23 extremely frustrated by the lack of public engagement by Orange County around the Buckhorn 24 Area Plan. After months of public comment begging to be heard, it was very disappointing to be 25 relegated to the sidelines, with no voice in the conversation, when you met with the city of 26 Mebane last week. It was downright aggravating to listen in on that conversation and hear you 27 receive misinformation. And the fact that some of the misinformation you received was related 28 to Mebane's public engagement process thus far is just infuriating. 29 30 It is our sincere hope that one of the actions you will take after last week's meeting is to put forth 31 a clear plan for public engagement. Until that happens, we will keep showing up at your 32 meetings, three minutes at a time, and we will be holding our own public information sessions. 33 We invite you to attend to get a more well-rounded and accurate view of the land use issues in 34 our community, as well as a clear picture of the process as it's been thus far. There is 35 information on the slide behind me about how you can join us. 36 37 Janine Zanin showed a slide on a community information session regarding the 38 Buckhorn Area Plan, which will take place on March 20, 2021 from 12:00 pm to 1:15 pm. 39 Janine Zanin continued reading her comments: 40 41 With my three minutes tonight, I want to make two points: 42 1. The public engagement process that actually happened bore little resemblance to the 43 process that was described at your meeting with Mebane. 44 2. In spite of the annexation rules, you DO have some say in what happens within the future 45 growth areas because you have a say in how Orange County invests its revenue. 46 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT 47 When Cy, Jesse, and Craig were asked about public engagement they said: 48 "We did mail to the entire area and expanded area outside the study area for that public 49 involvement meeting." No, they did not. They only mailed property owners whose property lay 50 within the boundaries of the five future growth areas. I have a copy of the letter here on the 51 screen behind me.