Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
5 <br /> within the boundaries of the five future growth areas. I have a copy of the letter here on the <br /> screen behind me. <br /> Janine Zanin showed a copy of the letter received by her neighbor. She continued <br /> reading her comments: <br /> My neighbor received it because she owns a home within Growth Area B. I did not receive a <br /> letter, nor did any of my neighbors. Our neighborhood is sandwiched between Growth Areas B <br /> & C. Craig Benedict said: "For the public info meeting that was a joint letter that came from the <br /> county for November 7th and 8th. One was with the Planning Board and one was public <br /> information. Jointly signed and sent from Mebane, Piedmont and the County." <br /> As you can see from the letter my neighbor received, the letter announcing the Planning Board <br /> meeting and the public info session came from Cy Stober, City of Mebane. And it was dated <br /> October 28th and I believe it arrived at our neighbor's home in early November, days before the <br /> planning board meeting. <br /> Landowners within1000 feet of the future growth areas did get notice of the City Council <br /> meeting in December. I received that notice as did my neighbors. But we were not invited to the <br /> public information session. <br /> INVESTMENT: <br /> You heard during that meeting that the future growth areas are not immediately actionable. <br /> They require further investment .... let's think critically about where to invest. And let's not limit <br /> our reflections to the investment we've made in sewer lines. We've also invested county dollars <br /> in the middle school, the soccer fields, and the Seven Mile Creek Nature Preserve and we <br /> should preserve those investments as well. <br /> Patty O'Connor read the following letter: <br /> Good evening commissioners, <br /> It wasn't my intent to speak at this meeting or for that matter, even attend it---until I heard the <br /> Orange County Planning Board chair, Mr. Blankford speak at your March 9th meeting. And the <br /> alarm bells went off. <br /> I found it curious that Mr. Blankford reported that with the last two MPD-CZ zoning requests, no <br /> one on either side was willing to compromise. He seemed to view the many citizen concerns as <br /> complaints, designed to interfere with a unanimous decision to proceed. Several of you duly <br /> noted that conflict can easily arise out of poor communication, and a lack of transparency. I <br /> hope Mr. Blankford made note of those comments and took them to heart. However, I am <br /> curious about who he was speaking of and why he thinks compromise is even in order when <br /> you're talking about burying 240 thousand gallons of gasoline on a protected watershed. There <br /> was plenty of compromise offered—it simply didn't involve threatening our community's water. It <br /> did involve making plans for the Efland community with the current zoning laws in place and <br /> some type of sustainable development that would have positive impacts and retain the rural <br /> character of the community. I'm not sure why he didn't see that. <br /> I bring this up now because here we are again, with the BAP on the table and the same <br /> community water involved. In my estimation, Mebane seems eager to proceed with industrial <br /> development and annexation. And it's evident that the OC planning board and planning <br />