FW: Public Comment provided on the Buckhorn Area Plan
Beth B
Hello Orange County Commissioners and Planning Board,
Although public comment will not being taken at the OC Planning Board meeting this Wednesday, 2/1/2021, I would also like to be able to reference (attached) my public comment to all Commissioners and PB members from last night’s Mebane City Council for your consideration. I am also attaching the BAP that is publicly available on their website, and potentially outdated.
My neighbors and I were made aware of the Buckhorn Area Plan, (BAP) at the 09Nov2020 City of Mebane Planning Board Meeting. Placing ownness on the City of Mebane would be utterly incorrect. From the 10Nov2020 public presentation, (note the timeline), it was made clear that the BAP plan had been driven by the Orange County Planning Department, without public input from the community prior to presenting to the city of Mebane for adoption. I acknowledge there was a public comment period provided by the consultants that developed the BAP. Albeit, after it was presented at the Mebane planning board for recommendation, and slated for adoption at the December city council meeting.
This has resulted in various developers prematurely applying for rezoning and annexation into the City of Mebane because there no county considerations for how to regulate/facilitate this “Transition Node.” I would like to understand the Orange County Planning Director’s line of thinking as to how something like this would not have needed to come through Orange County at all, first, or at minimum in parallel? And expect this to be part of the presentation on Wednesday.
Now on the planning board’s agenda some 4 months, and many public comments, later. It will be a discussion on how to even begin reviewing and when to present to OC commissioners; which is no earlier than April it seems…which further delays any concrete adoption of a future land use plan that either planning board would be able to reference. Not that something like this should have been rushed in the first place, it our point. Please understand that even as rural citizens we can see, plainly, the connection between Efland Station, 508 Buckhorn Rd, Buckhorn [Small] Area Plan and the potentially missed opportunity to address the need for capital improvements that would necessitate this kind of growth. It is also not lost on us the lack of advocacy for residents in Growth Area A, although it is respectfully alluded to in the attached study.
The Mebane City Council has been extremely gracious and understanding in hearing our frustrations. They have provided thoughtful consideration and questions around future land use that have come out of these public hearings. While being officially represented by OC, we are being presented with a strategic growth plan from the City of Mebane that dramatically alters previous versions of the Buckhorn Economic Development District (BEDD). For their time and consideration, I am grateful. What is most important, is that what is happening in the entirety of Cheeks township has brought to light the myriad of conceptual planning that fail to hold administrative clout.
The Mebane Efland Small Area plan came out of a community advisory board and was adopted in 2006. This conceptual plan does not account for many of the administrative changes that have resulted from the updated W/S agreement in 2011, Mebane’s annexation policy within their extraterritorial jurisdiction, and continued growth in and around Cheeks township. I would like to know if there are plans to reopen an advisory board that would allow for a joint planning area to be defined with tangible ordinances that we, the impacted residents, can live with as this dramatic shift from rural residential to light industrial/high density housing rezoning takes hold in a grey area of jurisdiction and enforceable ordinances.
Many thanks, and look forward to continuing this conversation at the appropriate time.
Best,
Beth Bronson