|
17
<br /> DRAFT
<br /> 546 County has had utility agreements with both of those cities, neither or which are current and they
<br /> 547 both expired. There was some, I guess, dictation of land use in those utility agreements, but
<br /> 548 again, they are both expired. I think to move forward and pretend that we're not going to have a
<br /> 549 recommendation on coordinating land use with the City of Mebane is foolhardy and I'm happy to
<br /> 550 say that out loud, and that it's a recommendation that I think the staff would propose to the Board
<br /> 551 and to this Board that we move forward with exactly that. How broad or how specific that
<br /> 552 recommendation will be has to be determined, but we will be moving forward with a
<br /> 553 recommendation to better coordinate land use with the City of Mebane, and as the former
<br /> 554 development director there, and to Beth's point, having Mebane just have a bland future growth
<br /> 555 area recommendation;that it should be secondary growth in that entire area, is unacceptable to
<br /> 556 the County and me as the planning director of the County. We need more specificity from the city
<br /> 557 on where and of what type of development they want to see and the parts of Orange County that
<br /> 558 they may annex or may grow into in the future while also respecting their ability to annex and
<br /> 559 make decisions on their own, but we'd like to at least have a realistic vision of what that future
<br /> 560 looks like.
<br /> 561
<br /> 562 Lamar Proctor: Was there any discussion about the 751 /US 70 Durham part up there?
<br /> 563
<br /> 564 Cy Stober: We actually got an email to the City of Durham that we were included on. Our commissioners,the
<br /> 565 Durham City Council, and Sarah Young, their joint City County Planning Department, so Sarah
<br /> 566 responded to that individual, because they wanted to expand their light industrial,or heavy
<br /> 567 commercial use out there, and they can't do it without utilities, and they reiterated their position
<br /> 568 that they don't have an agreement with the County, and none is forthcoming. Then that
<br /> 569 applicant's within their rights to apply for annexation and utility extension, but that the extension
<br /> 570 would be totally at the applicant's cost,which is pretty much a nonstarter given the constraints and
<br /> 571 the cost in that area.
<br /> 572
<br /> 573 Lamar Proctor: And then a second question about, can you kind of explain to me the push for development south
<br /> 574 of West Ten, and is it also part of the discussions in the Seven Mile Creek protected watershed
<br /> 575 that these things all come together right there. I think being in Cheeks and living in that area I do
<br /> 576 know that the local residents absolutely do not want to lose critically protected watershed of Seven
<br /> 577 Mile Creek, especially,what is east of Bushy Cook, that area over there,that's designated
<br /> 578 critically protected.Why the push for south of West Ten and how far does that go?
<br /> 579
<br /> 580 Leigh Anne King: Good question. I think,we haven't had a lot of discussion in this process about fiscal
<br /> 581 sustainability of the County, and thinking about its tax base, but that is an important consideration
<br /> 582 when you're doing land use planning because you want to think about the types of uses, you're
<br /> 583 creating capacity for. That's what we were evaluating with the land use alternatives. And there is,
<br /> 584 in terms of thinking about economic development opportunities within Orange County,the kind of
<br /> 585 highest and best use areas are all going to be along the interstates, particularly close to
<br /> 586 interchanges. Those are going to be the best properties to be able to support and encourage
<br /> 587 those types of business activities. Looking at infrastructure, looking at road and interstate
<br /> 588 accessibility,thinking about avoiding,to your point, important lands.There are very few places
<br /> 589 within this County where you can put economic development, so we were just hearing about the
<br /> 590 EDD that has utility constraints. It's still available for economic development, but it, at this time, it
<br /> 591 has to be done a scale that doesn't require public utilities,which is limiting in terms of what can
<br /> 592 actually go there. So, yeah, I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that it's needed for fiscal
<br /> 593 balance. We want to be able to provide all of the things that people want in this community. It
<br /> 594 costs money, and the more you put that burden on the residential taxpayers,the higher the taxes
<br /> 595 will get over time, and so it's important to be looking at opportunities for economic development to
<br /> 596 kind of share that tax burden.
<br /> 597
<br /> 598 Charity Kirk: Following up on that, but there's critically,there's protected watersheds. How are you dealing with
<br /> 599 the environmental aspect of that?
<br /> 600
<br />
|