Browse
Search
Agenda - 06-01-2021; 7-a - Buckhorn Area Study
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2020's
>
2021
>
Agenda - 06-01-2021 Virtual Business Meeting
>
Agenda - 06-01-2021; 7-a - Buckhorn Area Study
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/27/2021 11:51:09 AM
Creation date
5/27/2021 12:00:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
6/1/2021
Meeting Type
Business
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
7-a
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
51 <br /> (ADT). It was noted in the study that primary access points should be directed to West Ten Road and Buckhorn Road <br /> and away from Bushy Cook Road and Mt. Willing Road. As an additional consideration for the improvement of traffic <br /> flow and safety, a shared driveway requirement for contiguous non-residential uses is to be considered when feasible to <br /> do so. <br /> 3.h. Will any development along Buckhorn Road cause removal of the Washington Street and <br /> Washington Street Extension? <br /> No. There are no plans, studies, projects or anything else that would remove access to E. Washington Street and the E. <br /> Washington Street extension from Buckhorn Road. Any potential realignment of Buckhorn Road would maintain <br /> connection to E. Washington Street both east and west of Buckhorn Road. <br /> 3.i. Can West Ten Road Handle Truck Traffic? <br /> According to NCDOT staff, West Ten Road is built for mixed traffic including trucks. As a result of the land use analysis <br /> that was included in the Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane (EBM)Access Management Plan* (2019), Orange County is <br /> recommending roadway improvements to West Ten Road including larger lanes and wider paved shoulders. This is <br /> currently an unfunded project which Orange County will continue to pursue through the NCDOT prioritization process <br /> for funding consideration. This is handled separately from more localized road improvements that may need to occur <br /> through the implementation of development specific Traffic Impact Analyses (TIAs). <br /> *The process to prepare the EBM Access Management Plan also include public outreach, Planning Board <br /> recommendation, and BOCC adoption (04/02/2019). <br /> 4. Inter-Local Cooperation <br /> 4.a. Does Orange County have joint planning agreements with Mebane? <br /> No. Orange County and the City of Mebane are interested in working together and will continue to do so for <br /> geographies of mutual interest. While there is not a joint planning agreement between the two entities, Orange County <br /> and the City of Mebane do have a Utility Services Agreement that was amended in 2012. Mebane is not a signatory to <br /> the Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA). WASMPBA is a multi-party <br /> agreement among Orange County, Orange Water and Sewer Authority(OWASA), and the towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, <br /> and Hillsborough; WASMPBA establishes a system of service areas for public water and sewer utilities. Even without an <br /> agreement, both entities are interested in pursuing collaboration on projects. <br /> 5. Annexation <br /> 5.a. How does annexation work in North Carolina? <br /> North Carolina has three (3) statutory methods of municipal annexation: <br /> 1. Voluntary annexation of contiguous areas (G.S. 160A-31 and 31.1) <br /> 2. Voluntary annexation of noncontiguous areas (G.S. 160A-58 through -58.8) <br /> 3. Involuntary annexation of contiguous areas, subject to urban development standards, mandatory service <br /> provisions, and a referendum requiring approval by a majority of voters in the area to be annexed (G.S. 160A- <br /> 58.50 through -58.63). <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.