Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
3 <br /> University, said that we must conserve 50%. Wilson makes his argument clear in a 2016 book, <br /> called Half-Earth. <br /> As a member of a Voice for Efland/Orange I am holding each of you responsible for behaving in <br /> an ecologically sane manner. While we collectively stopped Buc-ees, another massive <br /> development crept in. While we do not expect to deconstruct Medline, we do expect Medline to <br /> work with the North Carolina Wildlife Federation to protect what remain of the acres not covered <br /> in concrete. <br /> We are opposed to the development in the Buckhorn Area Plan. You must decide is it 30% or <br /> 50% of Orange County lands that will be preserved. Thank you. <br /> Fiona Johann read the following statement: <br /> Hello, I'm Fiona Johann and I've been an orange county resident for 20 years. I want to start by <br /> thanking our BOCC and staff for meeting with the Mebane City Council in reference to the <br /> Buckhorn Area Plan in March. I am excited to see what kind of strategic planning will come from <br /> these two groups joining together to work on this important topic. <br /> In regards to the Buckhorn Area Plan I want to focus a bit on Gravelly Middle School. Gravelly <br /> Middle School serves Mebane residents who also live in Orange county, which is geographically <br /> half of Mebane. Gravelly Middle school currently serves 485 6-8 graders. Those middle <br /> schooler's are already surrounded on two sides by Medline and the highway. The Buckhorn <br /> Area Plan proposes surrounding the school and soccer fields by even more industrial builds. <br /> Every other middle school in Orange County is surrounded by residential housing, other schools <br /> and nature. What message are we sending to our middle schoolers and their parents by <br /> surrounding their school by industrial development? What will that do to their mental and <br /> physical health? <br /> We know that children benefit from being surrounded by nature. This isn't news to anyone, in <br /> fact in 2003 Nancy Wells an environmental psychologist and Gary Evans an environmental and <br /> developmental psychologist co-published the following findings, "In a rural setting, levels of <br /> nearby nature moderate the impact of stressful life events on the psychological well-being of <br /> children. Specifically, the impact of life stress was lower among children with high levels of <br /> nearby nature than among those with little nearby nature." (Wells, Evans, 2003) How can we <br /> know something and have it proven by science and still decide that industrial builds near a <br /> school are the good option? <br /> Not only am I concerned for the children's mental health but also their physical health. The <br /> traffic on west Ten will turn to primarily 18 wheelers coming from Medline and the approved Al <br /> Neyer distribution center. Isn't that enough risk? Do we really need to add more 18 wheelers to <br /> the area and trust that it will just "work out?" There is the risk of accidents but let us not forget <br /> the emissions that will come from these vehicles as they break, park, ideal and start in an area <br /> so close to the school. Children participate in sports on the middle school complex and soccer <br /> fields, are we really okay with putting them in a situation of breathing in even more diesel fumes <br /> while breathing heavily for extended periods of time? At least now there are a lot of trees in the <br /> area to help absorb emissions, what happens when we cut down our nature provided filters to <br /> create even more air, sound and water pollution? <br /> You all know I have multiple problems with the Buckhorn Area plan, but today I am focusing on <br /> the children that live here. We are hurting their futures in more way than one by extending the <br /> industrial development area. They will lose nature around their school, in the area they live and <br />