HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-01-2021; 7-a - Buckhorn Area Study 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 1, 2021
Action Agenda
Item No. 7-a
SUBJECT: Buckhorn Area Study
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Inspections,
Manager's Office, Economic
Development
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. May 17, 2021 Outreach Meeting Travis Myren, Deputy County Manager,
Notice (919) 245-2308
2. Public Comments/Questions Craig Benedict, Planning Director, (919)
Collected 245-2592
3. Frequently Asked Questions Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning
(FAQ) Document Supervisor, (919) 245-2579
4. Future Land Use Map Steve Brantley, Economic Development
Director, (919) 245-2326
PURPOSE: To receive a report on the Buckhorn Area Study public outreach, convey any
additional direction to staff, and discuss the need and timing of a Board response to the City of
Mebane.
BACKGROUND: As suggested by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) in late 2018,
staff was to research the development potential of existing designated economic development
zones, as well as other viable sites. A prior engineering analysis of strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats (SWOT analysis) by Timmons Group of the economic development
districts bolstered the need for additional study. Orange County's Planning and Economic
Development departments worked together with their Mebane counterparts on the Buckhorn Area
Study. As such, both jurisdictions funded the Study to help inform future land use and potential
utility service that could be mutually beneficial.
At its April 20, 2021 Business meeting, the BOCC received a report and detailed presentation
from staff that addressed:
• Orange County Comprehensive Planning and context history as it relates to Planning
collaboration with City of Mebane and Economic Development Zones;
• Overview of the current Countywide framework for development;
• Overview of water and sewer installations in the areas identified for Economic
Development;
• Buckhorn Economic Development District (EDD);
2
• Areas from the Buckhom Area Study with known developer Interest (A-B) - No known
interest in areas C, D, and E;
• Moving forward in coordination with the City of Mebane on Areas A and B; and
• Public outreach.
Key outcomes from the April Board meeting included direction to staff to proceed in scheduling
and holding an outreach meeting and to report back at the Board's June 1, 2021 meeting.
Following is a link to the agenda materials from the April 20, 2021 BOCC meeting:
http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/WebLink/O/doc/64229/Pagel.aspx
The video for the meeting is available for viewing at http://orangecountync.gov/967/Meeting-
Videos
May 17, 2021 VIRTUAL PUBLIC OUTREACH MEETING: A Public Outreach Meeting was held
on Monday May 17, 2021 from 6:00-8:OOPM. The meeting was advertised via direct mail to
owners of property located within Outreach Focus Areas "A" and "B", as well as those within
1,000-feet of these areas. The mailed notification letter, which included a map, is provided as
Attachment 1. Approximately 70 people attended, 21 people provided comments and/or
questions. At the end of the meeting, all people who had hands raised by the 8:00 end time were
able to speak at least once, and a few spoke more than once. Instructions were provided at the
beginning of the meeting, as well as the end, directing the public to send any additional comments
or questions to BuckhornStudy(a)orangecountync.gov. Comments and/or questions received at
that address by 11:59 PM on Sunday, May 23, 2021 are provided in Attachment 2. In response,
staff has developed a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document provided as Attachment 3.
The purpose of the outreach meeting was to:
• Continue engagement with the community as a follow-up to previous Buckhorn Area Study
meetings;
• Communicate that Areas "A" and "B" are to be the focus for outreach and planning
coordination between Orange County and the City of Mebane;
• Provide additional context for Outreach Focus Areas "A" and "B"; and
• Collect public comments and common questions to guide the development of a Frequently
Asked Questions (FAQ) document for public and BOCC information.
Consistent themes and questions from the meeting emerged during the Q&A portion of the
meeting, and are being documented as part of the FAQ document. Some of the key topics that
were raised in questions and comments include the following:
• Concerns with the tributaries feeding into Seven Mile Creek and Eno River
• A sense of lost trust in Orange County and the Planning Department
• The absence of "social impacts" as a facet of the study
• The challenges around holding public meetings over Zoom, especially for those with poor
broadband connectivity, as opposed to holding in-person meetings
• The absence of a comprehensive Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the West Ten Road and
Buckhorn Road areas (as opposed to project-specific TIAs)
• The presence of Gravelly Hill Middle School in an area that could become surrounded by
`big box' industrial or warehousing sites and the associated air quality concerns
• The potential for economic development to displace multiple groups of people, some of
whom have had land passed down through family for a century
3
DRAFT BUCKHORN AREA STUDY — SUMMARY OF ORANGE COUNTY MEETINGS AND
AGENDA ITEMS*:
• November 10, 2020—Joint City of Mebane and Orange County-hosted Virtual Open House
(Public Comments Taken)
• November 23, 2020 — BOCC Information Item
• February 16, 2021 — BOCC Report Item (Public Comments Taken)
• March 9, 2021 — BOCC Work Session with City of Mebane Council
• April 20, 2021 — BOCC Regular Item** (Public Comments Taken)
• May 17, 2021 —Orange County-hosted Virtual Public Outreach Meeting (Public Comments
Taken)
*The City of Mebane Planning Board and Council also conducted meetings between November
2020 — January 2021, which included opportunity for public comments and a formal public
hearing.
**An outcome of the April 20 BOCC meeting was the renaming of the Buckhorn Area Plan to the
"Buckhorn Area Study" to better reflect County intent and process, as well as Study content.
STAFF IDEAS FOR CONTINUED PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND COORDINATION: Orange
County Planning staff collects a variety of data on municipal development. Upon BOCC request,
staff has the ability to prepare and maintain a new webpage that could be used as a central
repository for western Orange County development trends, outreach information, and process
documents for proposed developments in the area. This could include tools and information, such
as:
• A link to the Mebane Development Map website that shows developments that are
proposed, approved or under construction in Mebane's incorporated area
• An Orange County-maintained map with parcels annexed into Mebane accompanied by a
table of total annexed acres over the past few years
• Materials associated with the Buckhorn Area Study process to date
• Links to relevant Mebane Planning Board and City Council documents as a part of the
development, annexation and rezoning processes that are in western Orange County
Any changes to the County's Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) or Zoning
require Orange County public hearing, advertised consistent with County ordinance, and County
Commissioner adoption. Development proposals submitted to Orange County are processed
consistent with the County's ordinance and development standards, different from those
submitted to the City of Mebane, which are processed consistent with its ordinances and
standards.
Orange County Planning staff will continue to actively participate in Technical Review Committee
(TRC) Meetings in Mebane when action is proposed in Orange County and provide memos in
accordance with Orange County Plans. In direct response to public comments, the Draft
Buckhorn Area Plan Study includes a section on "Development Standards" that discusses
Lighting, Trails, Buffers, and Traffic as areas for review and ongoing coordination between Orange
County and City of Mebane staffs. Additionally, the Orange County BOCC may resume its annual
meetings with Mebane City Council. As summarized previously, the Mebane City Council joined
the Orange County BOCC at its work session on March 9, 2021.
CONSISTENCY OF AREAS 'A" and "B" WITH EXISTING COUNTY PLANS AND
AGREEMENTS: Attachment 4 shows the relationship between Areas "A" and "B" and the Future
4
Land Use Map (FLUM) included in the adopted Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. As
indicated, Area "A" is located within an area currently identified on the FLUM as Economic
Development Transition future land use. Land in these areas have been specifically targeted for
non-residential land uses including light industrial, distribution, office, service/retail uses, and flex
space since 1981 with compatible zoning on the property since 1994. The study included Area A
to show its strength in economic development viability due to its location north of and adjacent to
the interstate. In addition, this study accented its viability with partial supporting infrastructure,
wherein the existing investment could be leveraged.
Attachment 4 also shows that Area "B" is located within an area currently identified on the FLUM
as Rural Residential future land use. Land in these areas have been specifically targeted for low
intensity and low-density residential development. Upon the direction of the BOCC, County
Planning staff could initiate a process to implement non-residential development in Area "B"
through proposed changes to the FLUM and Orange County Zoning, which would require
additional process consisting of public outreach, a Planning Board recommendation, a formal
Public Hearing, and adoption by the BOCC. However, such a process could be somewhat
misleading in the event that future development in Area B requires public water and/or sewer
utilities owned by the City of Mebane, which as a matter of policy will likely require a voluntary
annexation petition for utility connection. In cases of annexation, the development proposal would
be submitted to the municipality (City of Mebane) for processing consistent with its plan,
ordinances and standards rather than Orange County's plan, ordinances and standards. For this
reason, Planning staff is suggesting additional public engagement and coordination, as outlined
herein, rather than amendments to the County's FLUM and Zoning. This focused public
engagement and coordination on Area B could help inform the City of Mebane on any future
changes it may consider to its Comprehensive Land Development Plan, which currently excludes
the majority of Area B.
ORANGE COUNTY RESPONSE TO CITY OF MEBANE: The City of Mebane may be anticipating
comments from Orange County with regard to any feedback it may have on the Buckhorn Area
Study (a.k.a. Draft Buckhorn Area Plan to the City of Mebane), next steps, or closure. Tonight's
meeting may be the last opportunity the Board has to discuss a letter of response and offer staff
direction prior to the Board's summer meeting break.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The portion of the Study covered by Orange County has previously been
budgeted and paid during FY 2019-20. Existing staff resources can fulfill further research and
implementation, including changes to County plans or agreements. Monies could be budgeted for
a `deeper dive' into all related implementation aspects of Areas A and B.
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goals are applicable
to this item:
• GOAL: ESTABLISH SUSTAINABLE AND EQUITABLE LAND-USE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes
and educational levels with respect to the development and enforcement of environmental
laws, regulations, policies, and decisions. Fair treatment means that no group of people
should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences
resulting from industrial, governmental and commercial operations or policies.
• GOAL: ENABLE FULL CIVIC PARTICIPATION
Ensure that Orange County residents are able to engage government through voting and
volunteering by eliminating disparities in participation and barriers to participation.
5
• GOAL: ENSURE ECONOMIC SELF SUFFICIENCY
The creation and preservation of infrastructure, policies, programs and funding necessary
for residents to provide shelter, food, clothing and medical care for themselves and their
dependents.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There are no Orange County Environmental Responsibility Goal
impacts associated with this outreach report item. Chapter 4 of the draft Buckhorn Area Study
consists of an Area Description that provides sections on Land Use, Environment, and
Watersheds, each with an overview and map(s). The parcel analysis conducted and included in
Chapter 7 of the Study included wetlands, floodplains, preservation areas, mean slope, and water
supply watersheds, among other criteria.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board:
1. Receive the report;
2. Convey any additional direction to staff; and
3. Discuss the need and timing of a County response to the City of Mebane.
6
PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
Administration 131 W. Margaret Lane
(919) 245-2575 Suite 201
(919) 644-3002 (FAX) ORANGE COUNTY P. O. Box 8181
www.orangecountync.gov NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27278
® +
Oak-
April 30, 2021
Notice of
Virtual Public Outreach Meeting on the Buckhorn Area Plan Study Next Steps —
Outreach Focus Areas "A" and "B"
To Whom It May Concern:
The purpose of this letter is to notify you of an upcoming meeting pertaining to the continuation of
coordinated efforts between Orange County and the City of Mebane on the Buckhorn Area Plan
(a.k.a. Buckhorn Study).
Your property, or portion thereof, is either:
• Located within Outreach Focus Areas "A" or "B", as identified by the Orange County Board of
County Commissioners (BOCC) for further study and coordination; or
• Lies within 1,000-feet of Outreach Focus Areas "A" or "B" as identified by the Orange County
BOCC for further study and coordination.
Please see the map on the reverse side for the specific location of these areas.
The purpose of the public outreach meeting is to:
• Continue engagement with the community as a follow-up to previous Buckhorn Area Plan
Study meetings;
• Communicate that Areas "A" and "B" are to be the focus for outreach and planning
coordination between Orange County and the City of Mebane;
• Provide additional context for Outreach Focus Areas "A" and "B"; and
• Collect public comments and common questions to guide the development of a Frequently
Asked Questions (FAQ) document for public and BOCC information.
An on-line public outreach meeting has been scheduled for Monday May 17, 2021 from 6:00-8:00
PM. Following a brief staff presentation, participants will be asked to provide comments and
questions, which will be used to guide the development of an FAQ document. To participate, you will
be required to register for the meeting in advance, which will generate the Zoom invite with the link to
join. The link to register is on the Planning Department's website under the `Current Interest Projects'
tab, or the URL to register can also be entered into a web browser using the link directly below:
https://orangecountync.zoom.us/webinar/registerMN gyShxVQTLywLw_MBXXbtA
The Orange County BOCC will receive a report on comments and questions collected, as well as the
final FAQ document, at its Business Meeting on June 1, 2021, 7:00 PM. Your comments, thoughts,
and questions will help guide the BOCC in determining any next steps.
7
For those individuals who may not have internet access, there are phone options available to join the
meetings. Please contact Ms. Tina Love, Planning and Inspections Department Administrative
Support, at (919) 245-2575 or email at tlove@orangecountync.gov for information on how to call-in to
either meeting.
Additional information, including background information on the study as well as the hyperlink for
registration to this meeting can be found on the Planning Department's website under the `Current
Interest Projects'tab at: https://www.orangecountync.gov/792/Planning-Inspections.
You may also contact staff during regular business hours via email or phone:
• BuckhornStudy@orangecountync.gov;
• Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, at (919) 245-2579; or
• Tom Ten Eyck, Transportation/Land Use Planner, at (919) 245-2567.
Sincerely,
Craig N. Benedict, AICP
Planning Director
Outreach Focus Areas for Public Meeting and Coordination Between Orange County and Mebane
70
. o
0
6� WEST TEN RD
oor
x g z
�J
B
s�
Mailing Geographies ` N ,tn=,,6oc feet
ORANGE Feet
NTY
1000'Buffer Ty
� o LSoo
�ti Planning and 6nspectlons Department(DQ
Q Outreach Focus Areas alalzoz,
8
From: Aimee Tattersall
To: Buckhorn Studv
Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL!] Please Indicate Where Gravelly Hill Is On The Map!
Date: Monday,May 10,20218:22:20 PM
By leaving off the location of the school it masks the major concern that the school
could be surrounded by commercial development.
Most importantly all students and staff as well as soccer could be breathing truck
fumes.
thank you for adding this important detail, Aimee Tattersall
9
From: Fiona Johann
To: Renee Price;Jamezetta Bedford; Mark Dorosin;Sally Greene;Amy Fowler;Jean Hamilton;
mckee(a)oranaecountync.gov;ALL BOCC MANAGER CLERK; Laura Jensen;Buckhorn Studv
Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL!]Questions about BAP community input session 05.17
Date: Tuesday,May 11,20215:58:19 AM
Orange county commissioners and staff,
In order to make the best use of everyone's time, I am hoping to receive some clarity on how
the May 17th BAP community input session will be formatted. Will we be given 3 minutes to
make comments or will we be able to ask questions and have an open dialogue both staff and
commissioners?
Thanks in advance for this clarification. Looking forward to this session.
Best,
Fiona Johann
10
From: Tom Altieri
To: Margo Lakin
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL MAIL!]Re: FW: Buckhorn Area Plan public comment?
Date: Tuesday,May 11,20218:52:43 AM
Attachments: mage001ima
imaae005.pnng
image006.ing
Hi Margo,
Please feel free to call me Tom.
The purpose of the meeting is to collect/document questions and comments. While there will be a
+-20 minute staff presentation, there will be no conversation per say between staff and the public so
we are able to hear as many people within the 2-hr meeting as possible. The same applies to any
Commissioners that may watch and listen. The Commissioners have been taking public comment
during its meetings and staff will provide public comments to the BOCC at its June 1 meeting. As we
may have more participants on May 17 than we can hear, we will encourage the submittal of
additional comments to: BuckhornStudy(@orangecount)tnc.gov
Craig will have a role in the presentation, as will I and another staff person to review tech public
comment aspects, incl conveyance of the email address provided here.
Thank you,
Tom
From: Margo Lakin <margoelakin@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 10, 20218:22 PM
To:Tom Altieri <taltieri@orangecountync.gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL MAILI] Re: FW: Buckhorn Area Plan public comment?
Good Evening, Mr. Altieri:
I'm curious what the public information session process will look like on May 17. Will there
be public comment(if so, three minutes, I assume),will the commissioners have a
conversation with the public,will Craig have a presentation, etc.?
Thank you for any clarification you can provide. I greatly appreciate it.
Best,
Margo
On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 11:12 AM Tom Altieri<taltieri(c�z�orangecountvnc.gov>wrote:
Ms. Lakin,
While not Cy Stober's counterpart, I do report to the OC Planning Director, Craig Benedict,
and should be able to help you with any questions you may have about OC process. Feel
free to get in touch anytime next week. Email is fine but if you think some dialogue would
be most helpful, a phone call is also welcomed.
Thank you,
Tom
Tom Altieri, AICP
Comprehensive Planning Supervisor
11
Orange County Planning Department
131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 201
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Phone: (919)245-2579
Fax: (919) 644-3002
http://www.orangecountync.gov
taltieri e orangecountync.gov
ORMGE COUNTY
NOWili CAROLINA
From: Cy Stober<cstoberUcityofinebane.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 10:08 AM
To: Margo Lakin<margoelakinna&.gmail.coin>
Cc: Tom Altieri<taltieri&orangecount, nc.=>; Preston Mitchell
<bmitchellna cityofinebane.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL!] RE: Buckhorn Area Plan public comment?
Ms. Lakin,
I have not been asked by Orange County to represent the City at the meeting.
Mebane's position on the Buckhorn Area Plan, as stated by the mayor at the May 3, 2021,
City Council meeting:
"The Mebane City Council met with the Orange County Commissioners in March 2021.
The Commissioners are now discussing the Buckhorn Area Plan of 2020 with a scheduled
public hearing set for May 17. Until Orange County completes that process, the City of
Mebane,per the historic Mebane-Orange County agreement, will continue to utilize
statutory authority, with guidance from the City plans, and the existing Buckhorn Economic
Development District agreement when approached by property owners regarding voluntary
annexation and/or ETJ rezoning requests."
Please let me know if you have further questions or concerns.
Thank you,
Cy Stober, AICP
Development Director
.VAI
It e6aKe
Posilivge y ch arming
106 East Washington Street
Mebane,NC 27302
G 919 563-9990
www.cityofinebane.com
12
From: Margo Lakin<margoelakinngmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 11:21 AM
To: Cy Stober<cstober&cityofinebane.com>
Cc: Tom Altieri <taltieri_,orangecountync.gov>
Subject: Re: Buckhom Area Plan public comment?
Good Morning, Mr. Stober:
Thank you for the information. Would you be able to explain what is Mebane's position on
these matters,particularly the role in the planning process and the contents of the adopted
plans that apply in the area?
Also, can I assume you will be present at the May 17 joint public information session with
Orange County and Mebane to discuss the BAP?
Thank you again,
Margo Lakin
On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 8:44 AM Cy Stober<cstober o,cityofinebane.com> wrote:
Ms. Lakin,
The City of Mebane has no further public meetings scheduled for the Buckhorn Area
Plan. The Plan was not adopted by the Mebane City Council and staff was not directed to
bring it back to them for reconsideration. I believe that the Orange County
Commissioners have requested a meeting to discuss the plan further but I am not aware of
anything scheduled. I will be present at any such meeting to reflect City's position on
matters,particularly our role in the planning process and the contents of our adopted
plans that apply in the area.
Tom Altieri, Orange County Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, should be able to
provide you with information on activities at the County level for further public comment
opportunities. I have cc'd him on this e-mail.
Thank you for your inquiry.
Sincerely,
Cy Stober, AICP
Development Director
13
� 6axe
&Posiljvehi Charminq
106 East Washington Street
Mebane,NC 27302
• 919 563-9990
www.cityofinebane.com
From: Margo Lakin<margoelakin&.gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 12:08 PM
To: Cy Stober<cstober&cityofinebane.com>
Subject: Buckhorn Area Plan public comment?
Good Afternoon, Mr. Stober:
I'm curious if headway has been made on scheduling any type of public comment session
for the Buckhorn Area Plan yet? If so, would you know what that would entail or if a date
has been set yet? Is there someone else who would have this information?
Thank you for any assistance you can provide, it's greatly appreciated.
Enjoy your weekend,
Margo Lakin
14
From: Tom Altieri
To: Fiona Johann
Cc: Laura Jensen; Renee Price;Jamezetta Bedford; Mark Dorosin;Sally Greene;Amy Fowler;Jean Hamilton;
mckee(caoranaecountync.gov;ALL BOCC MANAGER CLERK; Buckhorn Study
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL MAIL!]Questions about BAP community input session 05.17
Date: Tuesday,May 11,20219:04:33 AM
Ms. Johann,
With regard to your meeting format questions...
The purpose of the meeting is to collect/document questions and comments. While there will be a
+-20 minute staff presentation, there will be no conversation per say between staff and the public so
we are able to hear as many people within the 2-hr meeting as possible. There will be a 3-minute
limit. The Commissioners have been taking public comment during its meetings but this is not one
and staff will provide public comments to the BOCC at its June 1 meeting. As we may have more
participants on May 17 than we can hear, we will encourage the submittal of any additional
comments to: BuckhornStudy(@orangecountync.gov
Please also see Laura Jensen's response below for additional info.
Thank you,
Tom
Tom Altleril, AICP
Comprehensive Planning Supervisor
Orange County Planning Department
131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 201
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Phone: (919)245-2579
Fax: (919) 644-3002
http://www.orangecountync.gov
taltieri&a orangecountync.gov
-.Z—
ORMGE COUNTY
NOwrut CAROLINA
From: Laura Jensen <Ijensen@orangecountync.gov>
Sent:Tuesday, May 11, 20218:46 AM
To: Fiona Johann <fiona.johann@gmail.com>; Renee Price<rprice@orangecountync.gov>;
Jamezetta Bedford <jbedford@orangecountync.gov>; Mark Dorosin
<mdorosin@orangecountync.gov>; Sally Greene<sgreene@orangecountync.gov>; Amy Fowler
<afowler@orangecountync.gov>;Jean Hamilton <jhamilton@orangecountync.gov>;
mckee@orangecountync.gov; ALL_BOCC_MANAGER_CLERK<OCBOCC@orangecountync.gov>;
Buckhorn Study<BuckhornStudy@ Orangecountync.gov>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL MAIL!] Questions about BAP community input session 05.17
Hello Ms.Johann,
The outreach meeting on the 17th is not a Board of County Commissioners meeting, but is organized
by the Planning Department. The Planning Department is accepting questions and comments at
BuckhornStudy(@orangecountync.goy. To register for the outreach meeting, please complete the
15
form at https://orangecountync.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_gyShxVQTLywLw_MBXXbtA. If you
need further information, please visit https://www.orangecountync.gov/1722/Current-Interest-
Projects.
Thank you,
Laura Jensen
Laura Jensen
Clerk to the Board
Orange County Government
liensen(cDorangecountync.gov
919-245-2130
From: Fiona Johann <fiona.johann(@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 11, 20215:58 AM
To: Renee Price<rarice(@ora ngecountync.gov>;Jamezetta Bedford
<ibedford(cDorangecountync.gov>; Mark Dorosin <mdorosin(@orang-ecountync.gov>; Sally Greene
<sgreene(@orangecountync.gov>; Amy Fowler<afowler(@orangecountync.gov>;Jean Hamilton
<ihamilton(cDorangecountync.gov>; mckee(@orangecountync.gov; ALL BOCC_MANAGER_CLERK
<OCBOCC(@orangecountync.gov>; Laura Jensen <IjensenCo)orangecountync.gov>; Buckhorn Study
<BuckhornStudy(cDorangecountync.gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL!] Questions about BAP community input session 05.17
Orange county commissioners and staff,
In order to make the best use of everyone's time, I am hoping to receive some clarity on how
the May 17th BAP community input session will be formatted. Will we be given 3 minutes to
make comments or will we be able to ask questions and have an open dialogue both staff and
commissioners?
Thanks in advance for this clarification. Looking forward to this session.
Best,
Fiona Johann
16
From: Dr.Kathleen A.Dawson
To: Crain Benedict
Cc: Cy Stober; Michelle Dodson;Chuck Edwards Contact;Tom Altieri;Thomas Ten Eyck;Steve Brantley; Bonnie
Hauser;Travis Myren
Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL!]Re: Re:West Ten Rd Question
Date: Tuesday,May 11,2021 11:15:45 PM
Attachments: image001.png
imaae002.pno
Thank you, Mr. Benedict. I will be sure to share the information with those concerned.
Respectfully,
Dr. Kathleen A. Dawson (she/her/hers)
Deputy Superintendent
Orange County Schools
200 E. King Street
Hillsborough,NC 27278
https://www.orangecountyfirst.com
This e-mail is for the sole use of the individual for whom it is intended.If you are neither the intended recipient,nor agent responsible for delivering
this e-mail to the intended recipient,any disclosure,re-transmission,copying,or taking action in reliance on this information is strictly prohibited.If
you have received this e-mail in error,please notify the person transmitting the information immediately.All e-mail correspondence to and from this e-
mail address may be subject to NC Public Records Law which result in monitoring and disclosure to third parties,including law enforcement.In
compliance with federal laws,Orange County Schools administers all educational programs,employment activities and admissions without
discrimination because of race,religion,national or ethnic origin,color,age,military service,disability or gender,except where exemption is
appropriate and allowed by law.Refer to the Board of Education's Discrimination Free Environment Policy AC for a complete statement.
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 5:37 PM Craig Benedict<cbenedictQorangecount,, gov>wrote:
Dr. Dawson,
West Ten Road has been designated a "Collector Road" on our region approved (i.e. Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (MPO's) "Access Management Plan" (AMP) for several years
acknowledging that our land use plan for this area (since 1981) has designated it as primarily an
economic development activity area.
Collector roads are known and designed to handle this higher level of traffic. This aspect was
known when the school was sited and that inevitably there would be a mix of traffic. NCDOT
employs criteria to ensure roadway standards meet this designation as well as any development
proposals.
We will continue our dialogue with NCDOT to ensure roads in the area meet their standards and
report back to you.
Thank you for your interest and concern.
17
Orange County Planning and Inspections Director
131 West Margaret Lane. Suite 201
PO Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
919-245-2585
From: Dr. Kathleen A. Dawson <kathleen.dawson(@orange.kl2.nc.us>
Sent: Monday, May 10, 20218:08 PM
To: Cy Stober<cstober(@cityofinebane.com>
Cc: Michelle Dodson <michelle.dodsonPorange.kl2.nc.us>; Chuck Edwards Contact
<cnedwards(@ncdot.gov>; Craig Benedict<cbenedictl@orangecountync.gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL!] Re: West Ten Rd Question
Thank you, Cy.
I've also cc'd Craig Benedict from Orange County Planning who may also provide more
guidance on the concern I shared about NCDOT's plans to make all of West Ten Rd.
(where GHMS is located) a truck route. As it stands now, trucks use it to bypass the
weigh station nearby. It appears this area is becoming more commercial all the
time. Is this true and if so, are there any other alternatives?
Thank you in advance.
Respectfully,
Kathleen
18
Dr. Kathleen A. Dawson (she/her/hers)
Deputy Superintendent
Orange County Schools
200 E. King Street
Hillsborough,NC 27278
❑https://www.orangecountyfirst.com
This e-mail is for the sole use of the individual for whom it is intended.If you are neither the intended recipient,nor agent responsible
for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient,any disclosure,re-transmission,copying,or taking action in reliance on this
information is strictly prohibited.If you have received this e-mail in error,please notify the person transmitting the information
immediately.All e-mail correspondence to and from this e-mail address may be subject to NC Public Records Law which result in
monitoring and disclosure to third parties,including law enforcement.In compliance with federal laws,Orange County Schools
administers all educational programs,employment activities and admissions without discrimination because of race,religion,national
or ethnic origin,color,age,military service,disability or gender,except where exemption is appropriate and allowed by law.Refer to
the Board of Education's Discrimination Free Environment Policy AC for a complete statement.
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 4:10 PM Cy Stober<cstoberC&,cityofinebane.com>wrote:
Dr. Dawson,
Thank you for writing. I only know what has been shared with the City by NCDOT: West
Ten is now open for heavy duty vehicle use from Mount Willing Road to Buckhorn Road.
I have cc'd the District 7 Engineer Chuck Edwards to see if he has any further comment
on this matter.
Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.
Thank you,
Cy Stober, AICP
Development Director
19
?10 4e6aite
lPOSUN04 Charming
106 East Washington Street
Mebane, NC 27302
• 919 563-9990
www.cityofinebane.com
From: Dr. Kathleen A. Dawson<kathleen.dawson(a�orange.kl2.nc.us>
Sent: Friday, May 7, 20216:50 PM
To: Cy Stober<cstobergcityofinebane.com>
Cc: Michelle Dodson<michelle.dodsongorange.kl2.nc.us>
Subject: West Ten Rd Question
Good afternoon, Cy.
I hope you had a great week. As you know, I'm still learning about all these
developments and my role as acting COO.
It was brought to my attention that there is a concern that the NCDOT plans to make all
of West Ten Rd. (where GHMS is located) a truck route. As it stands now, trucks
use it to bypass the weigh station nearby. It appears this area is becoming more
commercial all the time. Is this true and if so, are there any other alternatives?
Thank you, again Cy and I truly appreciate your patience and your willingness to
teach me.
Have a great weekend!
Kathleen
Dr. Kathleen A. Dawson (shelher/hers)
20
Deputy Superintendent
Orange County Schools
200 E. King Street
Hillsborough,NC 27278
❑his://www.orangecountyfirst.com
This e-mail is for the sole use of the individual for whom it is intended.If you are neither the intended recipient,nor agent
responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient,any disclosure,re-transmission,copying,or taking action in reliance
on this information is strictly prohibited.If you have received this e-mail in error,please notify the person transmitting the
information immediately.All e-mail correspondence to and from this e-mail address may be subject to NC Public Records Law
which result in monitoring and disclosure to third parties,including law enforcement.In compliance with federal laws,Orange
County Schools administers all educational programs,employment activities and admissions without discrimination because of
race,religion,national or ethnic origin,color,age,military service,disability or gender,except where exemption is appropriate and
allowed by law.Refer to the Board of Education's Discrimination Free Environment Policy AC for a complete statement.
21
From: Catherine Matthews
To: Buckhorn Study;ocbocc(domail.com
Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL!]Speaking Monday May 17th
Date: Sunday,May 16,2021 1:53:31 PM
Hello,
I would like to attend the BAP meeting and speak/ask questions.
Thank you,
Catherine Matthews
3818 Chestnut Ridge Church Rd
Efland,NC 27243
cmatthews i a'o.uncg.edu
Dr. Catherine E. Matthews
Professor Emerita, K-12 Science Education& Environmental Education
Department of Teacher Education &Higher Education, UNCG
22
From: Gordon Brown
To: Buckhorn Studv
Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL!]
Date: Monday,May 17,20213:45:55 PM
Is there a schedule for outreach focus on Areas C, D and E?
If so, what is that schedule?
Will Areas C, D and E remain viable areas of focus within the 1-40
corridor per the December 2020 Buckhorn Area Plan?
Thank you.
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
23
From: lbs ru
To: Buckhorn Study;ocbocc(damail.com
Cc: voice4efland(d)amail.com
Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL!]Questions and Comment by Tim Spruill about BAP
Date: Monday,May 17,20215:21:42 PM
1. The Buckhom Area Plan includes the area between 140/85 and West 10 Rd and Buckhorn
Rd and Mt Willing Rd in Orange County. What is the maximum impervious surface area
allowed by Orange County for this area, which is in the Upper Eno Protected Watershed? The
State Law says 30%, even though most research has found that 10% is the maximum
impervious surface allowed before the stream ecosystem and water quality degrades. Why
would Orange County Planning Department allow more than 10% impervious surface
development in a protected watershed in view of this research if it cares for the welfare of its
residents?
2. Sevenmile Creek and McGowan Creek drain directly into Class 1 reservoirs. While the
BAP is located in an area with obvious benefits to an industrial park, it is also located in an
area that is critical to providing clean drinking water to residents of Hillsborough that will be
adversely impacted with extensive industrial use development and impervious surfaces. These
impacts include increased sediment and other non-point source contaminant loads, as well as
significant impact on the underlying shallow aquifer by reducing baseflow to Sevenmile Creek
(reducing flows during dry periods and more importantly, during extended droughts). What,
specifically, is being done to prevent or mitigate these impacts?
3. Focus area A is located in an area that was originally proposed as the Buckhom Economic
Development Zone. Focus area B is not and was recently added, clearly in hopes of increasing
the money making machine for the County and City of Mebane. All with no discussion with
Orange County Commissioners or County residents. There are already families living in Focus
Area A. Focus Area B is zoned rural residential and already has residents. Gravelly Hill
School will be situated in the middle of manufacturing and warehouse facilities, if the
Buckhorn Area Plan is carried out. One such massive facility, Medline, is already located
immediately to the west of the school. The entire development will be in the headwaters of
two streams that provide public water supplies and in an area that has high quality water,
wildlife, and wooded wetlands that will be severely impacted if carried out as presented. The
BAP, as presented, will essentially obliterate the rural buffer between Mebane and
Hillsborough and essentially ignore the intentions of the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan to
retain the rural character of the County. The existing "plan"is no such thing.
The County should rethink the existing BAP by incorporating suggestions and ideas of its
residents before it is presented as a viable plan that deserves endorsement and support from
the Board of County Commissioners.
Sent from the all new AOL app for 10S
24
From: Tina Love
To: Craig Benedict
Cc: Thomas Ten Eyck;Tom Altieri
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL MAIL!]Recording of BAP Community Session?
Date: Tuesday,May 18,20213:35:06 PM
We haven't been posting videos but Perdita has provided PB Meeting video recordings
upon request
From:Jared Cates<ncjared@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 18, 20213:31 PM
To:Tina Love<tlove@orangecountync.gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL!] Recording of BAP Community Session?
Ms. Love -
Will a recording from the BAP Community Input session be put up on the Planning
Department's website? If so, can you please send me the link once it is up.
Thank you!
Jared Cates
Efland resident
25
From: Thomas Ten Evck
To: T Walker; Buckhorn Studv;Joseph golden
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL MAIL!] Fwd: Buckhorn Study
Date: Thursday,May 20,2021 1:38:40 PM
Attachments: imaoe002.ma
Ms. Walker,
Good afternoon. I wanted to get back to you after having talked with our Transportation
Planner and be sure that I knew all of the facts regarding E. Washington St. and the extension
to the east of Buckhorn Road. I also wanted to say thank you for participating in the meeting
and for asking this question.
I do not remember who may have mentioned the elimination of the E. Washington St. Ext., but
there is no plan, project or study that proposes elimination to E. Washington St. or the extension
to the east of Buckhorn Road. In any of the transportation projects that we have seen with
regard to the at-grade crossing of the railroad at Buckhorn Road (the railroad is, generally,
not a fan of at-grade crossings), E. Washington Street and the extension both remain in place
and maintain their connection to Buckhorn Road. Additionally, I do not know of any developers
or development conversations that have taken place in this area.
While one of the purposes of the Buckhorn Area Study was to analyze and study the parcels to
better understand what areas might be best-suited for future development, none of the results
are a guarantee of action; we are still very early in the process. And our purpose in the public
outreach meeting was to do exactly this—receive questions and provide clarification so that we
can be sure that we are being up front with any processes moving forward.
I also wanted to let you know that we will be including this question in our FAQ document that
we share with the Board of County Commissioners as we elicit their guidance for what to do
next. Thank you for your question, and I hope that what I've shared here is helpful.
If you have any additional questions, please feel free to email me back. You can also send
additional questions to BuckhornStud orangecountync.gov (as you did before), which will
come directly to me and my supervisor, and we can help you from there.
Have a wonderful rest of your Thursday, and thank you, again!
Sincerely,
Tom TE
Tom Ten Eyck
Transportation/Land Use Planner II
Orange County Planning & Inspections Department
131 West Margaret Lane, Suite 201
Hillsborough, NC 27278
26
Phone: 919-245-2567
E-mail: tteneyck oorangecountync.gov
Website: www.orangecountync.gov
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
From: T Walker [mailto:tondrawalker@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 12:54 PM
To: Buckhorn Study; joseph golden
Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL!] Fwd: Buckhorn Study
Hello,
I attended the online discussion held on Monday, May 17th regarding the proposed
development to occur on the Buckhorn Road area. My family and I have property in target
area A,between the 1-40/1-85 exit to the railroad tracks, eastside of Buckhorn Rd. There are a
few follow-up questions that I have from Monday's meeting.
There was a mention that it is proposed to eliminate E. Washington St., Ext. Is there follow up
plans regarding what to do with the houses and families that live on this road? Most of the
people are elderly and have been there for many years. I do not know the "pastor(s)" that are
speaking for the people of the neighborhood, especially since the pastor(s) do not live in the
area and do not represent me nor my family.
Have you been in contact with any developers currently for the area? If so, can you clarify? I
have a concern regarding the displacement of the predominantly black people in the area and
the "social impact" of them losing their homes.
Thank you for your time.
27
From: Gavin Philix)
To: Buckhorn Studv
Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL!] Buckhorn Area Plan Community Input Session
Date: Friday,May 21,20214:36:05 PM
Planning Department
As a resident who lives with 1/2 mile of this proposed development I have some major
concerns about the proposal. The Medline facility has already created safety concerns with
the large construction equipment, rocks and debris and its not even open yet.
I am very concerned that this proposal comes even closer to more homes and to our local
school. Would Chapel Hill let you build a manufacturing site next to their school? Why is that
OK for us in Efland?
I would ask that you consider dropping Areas C, D, and E for industrial/manufacturing
consideration moving forward because they are not viable sites, and Gravelly Hill
Middle School is in the middle of the proposed BAP.
I would ask that BOCC and the City of Mebane consider a binding agreement on a
Joint Area Plan. This would mean that Orange County as well as Mebane City
residents and voters would get representation on what happens in this area.
I'd be happy to help be part of the solution, but what you are proposing is not
acceptable for the local residents like me.
Sincerely
Gavin Philipps
4714 Timberwood Trail
Efland, NC 27243
28
From: Gaura Humek
To: Buckhorn Study;ALL BOCC MANAGER CLERK
Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL!]Buckhorn Study"plan B"
Date: Saturday,May 22,2021 1:51:23 PM
Orange Co Board of Commissioners,
My name is Gaura Humek, I am a resident of Efland. What you call "plan B", I call home,
and so do millions of other creatures that live out here. Not only do the lives living here care
about the protection of this land, but so do millions of others that depend on clean drinking
water. My property contains part of the small creek that flows through "plan B, I hike out in
the woods surrounding the creek many times.
I get to study the life system that thrives out there, not on a screen, behind a desk, but on a
personal level! I have seen thousands of plants and animals in those woods including owls,
hawks, bobcats, coyotes, deer, rabbits, ducks, beavers, muskrats, hundreds of types of
songbirds, turkey, turtles, and even a bear! This is a delicate ecosystem is in a critical
watershed protection area. I can be sure that there are many endangered plants and
wildlife that thrive in that ecosystem, including endangered Mussels! I know of three
freshwater springs that flow all year and I wouldn't be surprised to find more.
All the water that flows out of this property goes into Seven Mile Creek and then into the Eno
River and eventually makes its way into most of Eastern North Carolina. This is the drinking
water for millions of people, including yourself. So if want to guarantee that you, your family
and friends, and the rest of NC gets clean drinking water,you will make the right choice. You
will not let Mebane destroy this delicate Eco System!
Thank you,
Gaura Humek
is
29
From: John Dempsey
To: Buckhorn Studv
Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL!] Buckhorn Area Plan Public Comment
Date: Saturday,May 22,20214:38:04 PM
5.21.2021
To: The Orange County Planning Department
Re: Buckhorn Area Plan public comment and questions.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in public comments and questions
regarding the Buckhorn Area Plan (BAP) proposals.
I have two comments and a few questions regarding the BAP, particularly its
potential impact on Sevenmile Creek and subsequently the Hillsborough municipal
water supply. I believe that it is extremely important to answer questions regarding
the environmental impact that would result from changing the land use in Sevenmile
Creek and the first and second-order creeks that feed it and its aquifer.
Comment #1: There should be more opportunity for public comment regarding the
BAP. The meeting that recently took place was a bit confusing and the OCBOCC
would definitely benefit from the information provided by Orange County residents by
scheduling another public session.
Comment #2: Sevenmile Creek feeds into the Eno River system just upstream from
the Hillsborough municipal water supply intake. Hillsborough is the beneficiary of this
source of quality drinking water (NC State rated: WS-11, NS).
The environmental impact of the industrial uses recommended for this watershed in
the BAP need to be quantified in order for the Orange County Board to make the
correct decisions regarding land use and restrictions in that water system. Absent
engineering and science based information, regarding the volume and water quality
impact on this system, then the only vote that would make sense would have to be
`no', recognizing the existing protected watershed designation that this area enjoys. If
an area is currently protected then the burden of proof should be on those who
recommend stripping those protections. There should be data that is science based
and provided by third parties that have no financial interest in the proposed changes.
Questions for the Commissioners and the Planning Department:
• How can the Buckhorn Area Plan technically move forward given that it is not in
compliance with the WASMPBA, Water and Sewer Management Planning and
Boundary Agreement between Hillsborough, Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Orange
County?
• The Greene Tract Development has had a recent study completed by Synterra
Company identifying rare flora and fauna as well as trees that are over 100 years old
within that 164-acre parcel. How many trees over 100 years old are located within the
1,300 plus acres located within the overall Buckhorn Area Plan and how many of
those are on parcels A and B?
30
• What would the water temperature impact be on Sevenmile Creek, and the first and
second order streams that feed into it, from parcel B, if the Buckhorn Area Plan
should be implemented?
• What technical research has been done to determine the short and long term impact
on Sevenmile Creek, a NC State designated WS-II, Nutrient Sensitive system, by
impervious surfaces as a result of implementing the Buckhorn Area Plan?
• How would the Buckhorn Area Plan impact the aquifer that flows out of area B and
provides and purifies the ground water that charges Sevenmile Creek?
•What would the impact of the Buckhorn Area Plan proposed industrial build-out be
on the existing wildlife corridors between the Neuse and the Cape Fear watersheds?
• Sevenmile Creek feeds into the Eno River just upstream from the intake for the
Hillsborough Municipal water supply. What would be the sediment load impact on the
fresh water currently flowing from that creek almost directly into Hillsborough's water
supply intake?
• Has the Orange County Planning Board worked directly with the Hillsborough Water
Treatment Plant Staff or the Hillsborough City Government to determine the potential
sediment load and possible pollution impact on Hillsborough's water supply?
• The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission recently published a
conservation plan to direct management activities for threatened flora and fauna
within the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico river basins, it includes species in the Eno River
and Sevenmile Creek. Has the Orange County Planning Department been working
with that State agency to coordinate the Buckhorn Area Plan in support of their
conservation efforts?
• Why wasn't Orange County's own Committee for the Environment not consulted for
information and input regarding the environmental impact of rezoning rural residential
and agricultural use land, much of which falls within a County designated protected
watershed, for industrial and manufacturing use?
Thanks again for the opportunity to participate and for listening to the vital
information provided by Orange County residents. Together we make better
decisions.
Sincerely,
John Dempsey
Hillsborough.
31
The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.
—George Bernard Shaw
32
From: tbs"ru
To: Buckhorn Study;ocbocc(ciamail.com
Cc: cmatthews;Andrea Riley;John Dempsey; Fiona Johann; Beth B.;Jared Cates; Patricia OConnor; Matt Cartmill;
Kaye Brown;Lib Hutchbv
Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL!]Request for more public input opportunities for BAP
Date: Saturday,May 22,2021 11:38:04 PM
Dear Orange County Commissioners,
The BAP proposed by the Orange County Planning Department and Mebane City Council is
currently in need of much more consideration of comments and input from the public.
Comments at the first meeting held by the Planning Department indicated numerous issues
relating to environment, social justice, and suitability for any planned projects for a rural
setting. If Mebane and Orange County continue along their course of building to fill the tax
coffers in the absence of any thinking beyond what is minimally do-able from a basic
engineering viewpoint, without significant consideration of concerns and ideas from citizens
and others, the County will wind up with an industrial corridor composed of a concrete jungle
full of nameless buildings, few trees, and avoidable environmental costs.
Development of the Buckhorn area has been"planned"by the Mebane and Orange County
Planning Departments for more than 15 years, but with basically no public input. This is an
important change in land use that will impact Orange County residents far into the future. The
fact that a school is located in the middle of planned industrial warehouses and commercial
properties and that 70 percent impervious area is planned for a major water-supply watershed
is clear evidence that no care about real planning has taken place. Please require more public
input opportunities for meetings and require production of a real plan and vision beyond
the badly inadequate current form of the BAP.
Tim Spruill, Efland
Sent from the all new AOL app for JOS
33
From: Aimee Tattersall
To: ALL BOCC MANAGER CLERK; Buckhorn Study
Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL!]Traffic on West 10,Buckhorn and Mt.Willing Road with Commercial Development
Date: Sunday, May 23,2021 1:10:34 PM
Title: Worried About Traffic on West 10, Buckhorn and Mt. Willing Road
To the Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning
Department
You all are well aware that I am worried about traffic on West 10. You are all well
aware that there are more than 45 entrances on this three-mile stretch of West 10:
homes, roads that have from approximately ten residents to more than 20 homes,
churches, middle school and now MedLine and Neyer. More people live on
Buckhorn and Mt. Willing near these intersections.
I am frustrated when I hear so little concern for the people who live on these roads
from the city of Mebane, the Orange County Planning department and the Orange
County Board of Commissioners. The people who live outside the 1,000-foot mailing
area may have no idea that commercial development can happen in Area A and Area
B and yet they must deal with the consequences. Until Neyer starts clearing most
residents may not know about that either.
No one has any idea how may trucks MedLine will generate, There was no Traffic
Impact Analysis (TIA). I do know that even during the construction phase there are
well over 300 vehicles of all sizes in and out every day.
There is a TIA for Neyer. I an sure you all understand it. I cannot say the same for
myself. At the beginning of the document ("Table E-1: Site Trip Intensity, page 4)" we
learn that there will be 675,000 sq. ft. intensity (whatever that includes ) with 1,120
daily trips with week day am enter peak of 82 vehicles per hour and pm exit peak of
80 vehicles per hour. And this is half the square feet of MedLine! Or does this
include MedLine, school traffic and regular folks like me? What intersections does this
include? I do not have have clarity. I hope you do. Pllease educate me and my
fellow residents!
How many vehicles will converge on the interstates rom Mattress Factory Road and
Amacel? How many trips every day from current houses and houses under
construction nearby?
(Have you driven Bowman Road recently? Over 200 new homes under construction.)
There is so much we will not know until MedLine goes operational in 2022. Maybe
you know Neyer's schedule. I do not.
I hope the city of Mebane will take the concerns of Orange County into account but I
gather they are not required to do so if the land owners request to be annexed. I
34
realize that this might in the end be Mebane's decision only.
Thank you for listening,
Aimee Tattersall, 1133 Squires Road, Mebane NC 27302
35
From: Andrea Riley
To: ULSM
Cc: Buckhorn Study;ocbocc(cbamail.com;cmatthews;John Dempsey; Fiona Johann; Beth B.;Jared Cates; Patricia
QQonnor;Matt Cartmill; Kaye Brown; Lib Hutchbv
Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL!]Re: Request for more public input opportunities for BAP
Date: Sunday,May 23,20214:38:05 PM
Fantastic letter, Tim, as usual. Thank you for writing and for sharing!
Andrea
On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 11:34 PM tbspru<tbsprun.aol.com>wrote:
Dear Orange County Commissioners,
The BAP proposed by the Orange County Planning Department and Mebane City Council is
currently in need of much more consideration of comments and input from the public.
Comments at the first meeting held by the Planning Department indicated numerous issues
relating to environment, social justice, and suitability for any planned projects for a rural
setting. If Mebane and Orange County continue along their course of building to fill the tax
coffers in the absence of any thinking beyond what is minimally do-able from a basic
engineering viewpoint, without significant consideration of concerns and ideas from citizens
and others, the County will wind up with an industrial corridor composed of a concrete
jungle full of nameless buildings, few trees, and avoidable environmental costs.
Development of the Buckhorn area has been"planned"by the Mebane and Orange County
Planning Departments for more than 15 years,but with basically no public input. This is an
important change in land use that will impact Orange County residents far into the future.
The fact that a school is located in the middle of planned industrial warehouses and
commercial properties and that 70 percent impervious area is planned for a major water-
supply watershed is clear evidence that no care about real planning has taken place. Please
require more public input opportunities for meetings and require production of a real plan
and vision beyond the badly inadequate current form of the BAP.
Tim Spruill, Efland
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
36
From: Andrea Riley
To: Buckhorn Study;ocboccCalgmail.com;Renee Price;Jamezetta Bedford;Jean Hamilton;Sally Greene;Amy Fowler;
Mark Dorosin;Earl McKee
Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL!]Orange County Planning Department Outreach Meeting regarding the Buckhorn Area
Plan/"Study"
Date: Sunday,May 23,20214:41:07 PM
Attachments: Questions for May 17,2021 Orange County BAP Outreach Meeting.doc
Commissioners,
If the Orange County Planning Department believes that the Public outreach meeting that was
held on May 17, 2021 was enough to restore the public trust in the Planning Department it is
sadly mistaken. The presentation seemed to be another attempt at face-saving after all of the
department's repeated lies, obfuscations, misrepresentations, manipulations, and omissions
about the Buckhorn Area Plan, a woefully inadequate plan that has recently been retroactively
and disingenuously repackaged by the department as a"Study".
The information presented at the Outreach Meeting misrepresented the sequence of events that
took place regarding the presentation of this plan to the public; it glossed over the fact that
there was no meaningful data in the plan regarding environmental, social, or traffic impacts on
the area; it omitted the fact that there existed a previous understanding among the BOCC
members that there would be no build out or development below(south of)West 10 Road;
and it failed to invite a representative from the Mebane Planning Department to participate in
the Q & A of the meeting, despite the fact that this plan is a joint plan of Mebane and Orange
County.
For a more accurate presentation about the Buckhorn Area Plan, see the podcast interview of
Janine Zanin on WHUP at https://whupfm.org/episode/3-d-news-5-17-21/. Tune in around
minute 24:33 to hear Janine explain what the BAP is and outline what the procedural and
inherent problems are with this proposal.
The directions for participation in the county's Outreach Meeting were vague and confusing to
those of us who wanted to contribute. I, for one, could not figure out whether I had a choice
between clicking on the "raise hand"button and the Q&A button, or whether I should use
both, so I clicked on both. The result was that I was first in line and called on for the first
question in my Q & A: this question was read aloud by the moderator; Craig Benedict gave a
rambling and vague answer; and then the moderator moved on to the next person who had
raised his hand.Neither my second or third question was read nor answered, nor did I have a
chance to comment or have another chance to participate. (The Q &A option seemed to be
blocked after the meeting started; my three questions are attached.)
There is a high likelihood that there were others who also were confused about the procedure
for participating, and that there were additional people who did not get a chance to be heard.
We are asking that there be another meeting held—one that is more widely publicized and
competently organized, with clear directions for participation—so that more voices can be
taken into consideration before the BOCC receives the FAQ and comments presented by the
Planning Department.
It has come to the public's attention that there has been a request from the county for an
outside, impartial evaluation of the Orange County Planning Department to be conducted. We
applaud this decision. It is our hope that ALL OF THE MATERIAL AND COMMENTS
37
which were submitted regarding the application for rezoning for RTLP and Efland Station, as
well as that pertaining to the adoption of the Buckhorn Area Plan,will be made available for
this evaluation.
There is a need for a new, more creative approach to land use planning in Orange County—
perhaps with new personnel leading the Planning Department and the Economic Development
Unit. There is a resource in Orange County that could be utilized to aid in identifying broader
options than those that have been proposed to date by the Planning Department and Economic
Development Unit. The UNC School of Government has expertise in assisting communities to
identify what they want in the way of development, as well as experience in then locating
applicants. The School could be asked by the BOCC to survey Northern Orange residents'
development needs and then find applicants that meet those needs. It would be a shame not to
take advantage of the School's experience in aiding communities to identify and locate smart,
sustainable development—development that serves the people of Northern Orange County
rather than the profit margin of industrial developers. It is the hope of A Voice for Orange
members that the BAP, as it stands, will be abandoned, and that a fresh study will be
conducted with the aid of the UNC School of Government.
Respectfully,
Andrea T. Riley
38
Questions for submission at the Orange County Planning Department Outreach
Meeting for the Buckhorn Area Plan:
1) What possibilities are being considered by Orange County to extend conservation
or preservation of the land adjacent to Seven Mile Creek Natural Area?
2) Has Orange County considered asking the Town of Mebane to join the Orange
County Water and Sewer Management, Planning and boundary Agreement of
2001 in order to protect the agreed upon rural buffer areas of Orange County, to
limit the jurisdiction areas for development of sewer and water services, and to
share service responsibilities, and if not, why not?
3) Wasn't there an earlier agreement among the Orange County Commissioners not
to build out and develop the land below(south of) West 10 Road, and why is that
agreement being overlooked?
Submitted by Andrea Riley
05/17/2021
39
From: Lib Hutchbv
To: Andrea Riley
Cc: Buckhorn Study;ocboccCalgmail.com; Renee Price;Jamezetta Bedford;Jean Hamilton;Sally Greene;Amy Fowler;
Mark Dorosin;Earl McKee
Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL!] Re:Orange County Planning Department Outreach Meeting regarding the Buckhorn Area
Plan/"Study"
Date: Sunday,May 23,20216:57:34 PM
On May 19, I sent the following to the Orange County Board of Commissioners: No response
has been received. I'm not sure anyone has read it.-Lib
Lib Hutchby <1ibhutchby5Agmai1.com> May 19, 2021, 11:33 AM (4 days ago)
Dear Commissioners,
After listening to and watching the Orange County Planning Department's presentation and
Q&A, part of me felt sorry for you and part of me felt angry and all seemed confusing. It
was not a good night for the Planning Department staff and I still wonder how they could
have gotten by with such a lack of transparency for so long.
The proposal for Buckee's , for example, should never have come to the Orange County
Board of Commissioners. Now, it seems that the folks who live in Efland, Cheeks,
Hillsborough, all the children who go to school or play soccer along W. Ten Rd., face the
possibility of unsafe access. No traffic study was done. No adequate interpretation of the
impervious surface has been presented by the staff. No priority to protecting Seven Mile
Creek has been presented. No realistic attention to the climate crisis we all face has been
infused with authority to insist on renewables and environmental justice regardless of what
"development" looks like.
Now, after months of calling the BAP a"plan," it's being called a"study" and the process
has left residents saying, "We don't trust. . ." It's a sad situation when confusion leaves few
feeling confident that those whom we elected have been left out of a necessary process.
Those of us who are volunteers will endure more necessity to bring previous professional
expertise to the questions as a method of your learning just how inept the leadership in the
Planning Department has become.
Yes, you need more experts in air and water quality to actually monitor the existing spaces
for pollution, monitor the roadways to understand that W. Ten will not be safe for scenic
highway users or children because trucks are already discovering it as an alternative bypass
of requirements on I-40 and development begins to chew away at the rural protections like
grinding one's teeth at night and, over time, having high dental bills, fewer teeth, and painful
consequences.
40
Yes, I'm reacting and responding. I care what happens to those in Northern Orange County
as well as I care what happens to the decision-makers for Orange County. "Caring" doesn't
fix the Planning Dept., but until we care, usually we don't even notice that something needs
to be changed. I just want you to know that I know it needs fixing and the sooner the better.
Sincerely,
Lib Hutchby
Chapel Hill
to ocboccgorangecount,ync.gov
On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 4:19 PM Andrea Riley<ateuteriley44&g_mail.com>wrote:
Commissioners,
If the Orange County Planning Department believes that the Public outreach meeting that
was held on May 17, 2021 was enough to restore the public trust in the Planning Department
it is sadly mistaken. The presentation seemed to be another attempt at face-saving after all of
the department's repeated lies, obfuscations, misrepresentations,manipulations, and
omissions about the Buckhorn Area Plan, a woefully inadequate plan that has recently been
retroactively and disingenuously repackaged by the department as a"Study".
The information presented at the Outreach Meeting misrepresented the sequence of events
that took place regarding the presentation of this plan to the public; it glossed over the fact
that there was no meaningful data in the plan regarding environmental, social, or traffic
impacts on the area; it omitted the fact that there existed a previous understanding among the
BOCC members that there would be no build out or development below (south of) West 10
Road; and it failed to invite a representative from the Mebane Planning Department to
participate in the Q &A of the meeting, despite the fact that this plan is a joint plan of
Mebane and Orange County.
For a more accurate presentation about the Buckhorn Area Plan, see the podcast interview of
Janine Zanin on WHUP at htWs://whupfm.org/episode/3-d-news-5-17-21/. Tune in around
minute 24:33 to hear Janine explain what the BAP is and outline what the procedural and
inherent problems are with this proposal.
The directions for participation in the county's Outreach Meeting were vague and confusing
to those of us who wanted to contribute. I, for one, could not figure out whether I had a
choice between clicking on the "raise hand"button and the Q&A button, or whether I
should use both, so I clicked on both. The result was that I was first in line and called on for
the first question in my Q & A: this question was read aloud by the moderator; Craig
Benedict gave a rambling and vague answer; and then the moderator moved on to the next
person who had raised his hand. Neither my second or third question was read nor answered,
nor did I have a chance to comment or have another chance to participate. (The Q &A
option seemed to be blocked after the meeting started; my three questions are attached.)
41
There is a high likelihood that there were others who also were confused about the
procedure for participating, and that there were additional people who did not get a chance
to be heard. We are asking that there be another meeting held—one that is more widely
publicized and competently organized, with clear directions for participation—so that more
voices can be taken into consideration before the BOCC receives the FAQ and comments
presented by the Planning Department.
It has come to the public's attention that there has been a request from the county for an
outside, impartial evaluation of the Orange County Planning Department to be conducted.
We applaud this decision. It is our hope that ALL OF THE MATERIAL AND
COMMENTS which were submitted regarding the application for rezoning for RTLP and
Efland Station, as well as that pertaining to the adoption of the Buckhorn Area Plan, will be
made available for this evaluation.
There is a need for a new, more creative approach to land use planning in Orange County—
perhaps with new personnel leading the Planning Department and the Economic
Development Unit. There is a resource in Orange County that could be utilized to aid in
identifying broader options than those that have been proposed to date by the Planning
Department and Economic Development Unit. The UNC School of Government has
expertise in assisting communities to identify what they want in the way of development, as
well as experience in then locating applicants. The School could be asked by the BOCC to
survey Northern Orange residents' development needs and then find applicants that
meet those needs. It would be a shame not to take advantage of the School's experience in
aiding communities to identify and locate smart, sustainable development—development
that serves the people of Northern Orange County rather than the profit margin of industrial
developers. It is the hope of A Voice for Orange members that the BAP, as it stands, will be
abandoned, and that a fresh study will be conducted with the aid of the UNC School of
Government.
Respectfully,
Andrea T. Riley
42
From: Matt Cartmill
To: Buckhorn Studv
Cc: Matt Cartmill
Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL!]Areas C,D,and E
Date: Sunday,May 23,2021 11:06:09 PM
At the recent meeting held by the County Planning Department to receive public input on the Buckhorn Area Study,
it was stated that areas C.D,and E,the three easternmost study areas in the original Buckhom Area Plan,were
being removed from consideration for the time being. I am writing to stress that these areas should be permanently
and explicitly removed from Buckhom Area economic-development planning. All three drain immediately into
critically protected watersheds. None of the three contains the infrastructure necessary for either commercial or
dense-residential development and exploitation. With respect to Area E in particular,the city planning departments
of both Mebane and Hillsborough have expressly denied any intention of bringing in either water or sewer in the
immediate or foreseeable future. Any Buckhorn Area Study that emerges from the current planning should exclude
these three areas,included in the original plan,from further consideration.
Matt Cartmill,
Hillsborough.
43
From: Patricia OConnor
To: Buckhorn Study
Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL!]BAP
Date: Sunday,May 23,2021 11:46:33 PM
Dear Planners,
The recent meeting about the BAP was confusing and left many people out of the discussion.
Another meeting, with more clear instructions about how and when to speak is in order.
Whether you call it a plan or a study, there remains much to discuss about development along
the West Ten corridor. It is totally unfair that multiple properties, not in the original plan, have
been annexed and rezoned by Mebane. My home, and numerous others, will soon be
embedded in an industrial park without any real estate impact study, without a complete traffic
study that includes Medline and Neyer(or if it exists, it's not clear) and without any regard for
the impacts on our quality of life. The trucks using this road have increased dramatically in
number since the beginning of this development, many likely now avoiding the weigh station.
This isn't very thoughtful planning. Our homes and way of life have been sacrificed for the
sole purpose of filling Mebane and OC coffers. Thoughtful development is possible but seems
beyond your reach. Why aren't you seeking development that would enhance our rural areas
and protect our air,water and quality of life? Why is everyone simply settling for warehouses
like there is no other development possible for this corridor? It lacks all thoughtfulness and
imagination. In addition to many homes, we have a middle school, soccer field, planned ball
field and 2 places of worship on West Ten Road. Surely there are other projects that would
both enhance the rural environment and generate revenue.
I had planned on staying in my home through my retirement but fear the proposed
development will make it an unattractive option. The people who live here deserve better and
should have a voice in how development proceeds in this area.
Patty O'Connor
1011 Squires Rd.
Mebane,NC
Patty O.
Sent from my I-phone
44
ATTACHMENT 3
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Draft Buckhom Area Study
Frequently Asked Questions
( FAQ )
May 2021
45
Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................3
1. Land Use History/Project Initialization ...........................................................................................................................3
1.a. What is the Buckhorn Area Study?...............................................................................................................................3
1.b. What was the catalyst for the Buckhorn Area Study? .................................................................................................3
1.c. What was the scope of the study?...............................................................................................................................3
1.d. How many meetings were held for the Buckhorn Area Study?...................................................................................4
1.e. What are the next steps for the Buckhorn Area Study? ..............................................................................................4
2. Focus Areas of the Buckhorn Area Study........................................................................................................................4
2.a. What are Focus Areas "A" and "B"from the Buckhorn Area Study?...........................................................................4
2.b. What are the Future Land Uses for Focus Areas "A" and "B" based on Orange County's Future Land Use Map
(FLUM)?...............................................................................................................................................................................5
2.c. Where are the existing water and sewer utilities in this area located?.......................................................................6
2.d. How do water and sewer utilities affect growth? .......................................................................................................6
2.e. Will Areas C, D and E remain viable for development?...............................................................................................6
3. Balance of Goals—Environmental, Economic and Equity in Services.............................................................................6
3.a. Were there environmental considerations as a function of the technical study? ......................................................6
3.b. Were there watershed considerations as a function of the technical study?.............................................................7
3.c. Is Orange County compliant with the State's requirements for the Protected and Critical Areas of the Upper Eno
Watershed?.........................................................................................................................................................................7
3.d. Were there social considerations as a function of the technical study?.....................................................................7
3.e. Is Gravelly Hill Middle School labelled on the maps included in the Study?...............................................................7
3.f. Were there economic development considerations as a function of the technical study?.........................................7
3.g. Were there traffic considerations as a function of the technical study?.....................................................................7
3.h. Will any development along Buckhorn Road cause removal of the Washington Street and Washington Street
Extension?...........................................................................................................................................................................8
3.i. Can West Ten Road Handle Truck Traffic?....................................................................................................................8
4. Inter-Local Cooperation..................................................................................................................................................8
4.a. Does Orange County have joint planning agreements with Mebane?........................................................................8
5. Annexation......................................................................................................................................................................8
5.a. How does annexation work in North Carolina?...........................................................................................................8
5.b. Is the Buckhorn Area Study a precursor to involuntary annexation?..........................................................................9
5.c. Is the Buckhorn Area Study a precursor to voluntary annexation? .............................................................................9
5.d. What is Mebane's role in annexation, and how does that affect the development approval process?.....................9
46
Introduction
Orange County Planning Staff prepared this document in response to residents' questions and comments regarding the
Buckhorn Area Study that was undertaken by the City of Mebane and Orange County. The Study was a combined effort
of the two jurisdictions.
Staff hopes that residents and the Board of County Commissioners will find this document useful.
1. Land Use History/Project Initialization
1.a. What is the Buckhorn Area Study?
The Buckhorn Area Study(originally the Buckhorn Area Plan) is a technical study of future land use and potential utility
services to identify properties that could be zoned for nonresidential purposes and best support economic development
while balancing the costs of utility service extensions. The study used GIS mapping to determine parcels most suitable
for development within the study area. The study process allowed for a technical review of multiple development
factors, including:
• Developable acres • Water Infrastructure
• Preservation areas • Interstate Access
• Average (mean) slope • Interstate Visibility
• Watersheds • Roadway Access
• Sewer Infrastructure • Access to Existing Rail Lines
Past plans in the area were reviewed to ensure that the vision, goals, and strategy for the area aligned with the
recommendations to the Buckhorn Area Study. The study area was defined after significant consideration of existing
land uses, environmental impacts and economic potential.
1.b. What was the catalyst for the Buckhorn Area Study?
Mebane's Comprehensive Land Development Plan, Mebane by Design, was adopted in 2017 and provides a vision for
Mebane's growth through 2035. In its 2017 version, Mebane by Design did not fully address the areas that fell outside
of its Future Growth Area, including the Medline site. As such,the City of Mebane needed to amend Mebane by Design.
The Buckhorn Area Study provided the necessary focus to amend the G-2 Industrial (V) Growth Area as well as the
Future Growth Area boundary line in Mebane by Design.
In Orange County's case, as suggested by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) in late 2018, staff was to research
the development potential of existing designated economic development zones, as well as other viable sites. A prior
engineering analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT analysis) by Timmons Group of the
economic development districts bolstered the need for additional study, which led to the Buckhorn Area Study.
1.c. What was the scope of the study?
The Piedmont Triad Regional Council (PTRC) Scope of Services,taken from its contract with the City of Mebane,
included:
• Staff meetings
• Analysis of existing conditions, prior studies, environmental constraints, and water/sewer infrastructure
• Evaluation of growth trends, population and jobs
• Stakeholder interviews with schools, businesses, and organizations
• Public information meeting
• Presentation of Study to Mebane Council and Orange County BOCC
47
• Update to the Mebane by Design report.
The Contract offers some explanation to the title discrepancies, and the misunderstanding that has occurred over the
title, which was referred to as, "Small Area Plan Study". By virtue of separate Agreement, Orange County agreed to split
the cost of the Study with Mebane.
1.d. How many meetings were held for the Buckhorn Area Study?
There have been six meetings between 2020 and 2021 that have had a focus on the Buckhorn Area Study, detailed
below:
• November 10, 2020—Joint City of Mebane and Orange County hosted Virtual Open House (Public Comments
Actively Solicited)
• November 23, 2020—BOCC Information Item
• February 16, 2021—BOCC Report Item (Public Comments Taken)
• March 9, 2021—BOCC Work Session with City of Mebane Council
• April 20, 2021—BOCC Regular Item (Public Comments Taken)
• May 17, 2021—Orange County hosted Virtual Public Outreach Meeting (Public Comments Actively Solicited)
Additionally,the City of Mebane Planning Board and City Council conducted meetings on the topic:
• November 9, 2020—Mebane Planning Board approves BAPS and amendment to Mebane's CLDP
• December 7, 2020—Mebane City Council discusses the modification of Mebane's CLDP to include the West Ten
Industrial Site (6016 W.Ten Rd.) and Medline Sites (5512 W.Ten Rd. and 5414 W. Ten Rd.) and to continue to
public hearing until the 1.4.21 Council meeting.
• January 4, 2021—Mebane City Council continues the public hearing, but leans on the decision to not adopt the
Buckhorn Area Study until it is seen by the Orange County Commissioners, and the public hearing was continued
until the 1.6.21 Council meeting.
• January 6, 2021—Mebane City Council votes to amend the CLDP, Mebane by Design, to include West Ten
Industrial Site (6016 W.Ten Rd.), the Medline sites (5512 W.Ten Rd. and 5414 W.Ten Rd.) and Focus Area A
from the Buckhorn Area Study.
1.e. What are the next steps for the Buckhorn Area Study?
At the time of first drafting this document,the Orange County Planning and Inspections Department was preparing to
host a public outreach session on May 17, 2021 from 6:00 PM—8:00 PM to allow the public to share questions and
comments. Much of the information that fills this document was captured at the public outreach meeting, and some of
the questions have been based on queries that came outside of the scope of the public meeting.
After receiving questions and comments from the public, Orange County Planning will compile this FAQ document and
share it with the BOCC for its June 1, 2021 Business Meeting. The BOCC will decide what future steps are warranted.
2. Focus Areas of the Buckhorn Area Study
2.a. What are Focus Areas "A" and "B" from the Buckhorn Area Study?
Focus Areas "A" and "B" are the two areas of interest that grew out of the original Buckhorn Area Study. Focus Area A is
located north of Interstate 40/85 and is zoned EBD-2. Focus Area B is located south of West Ten Road and is zoned R1.
48
Outreach Focus Areas A and B-Current Zoning
k -
b
7
3,
Hary Gr-k
ry i
Outreach F—Aeeas CC3 •a"-1 MPD-C2 A:J
r�Watersheds -C"6+rms_NC2 Upper Ew
Elland-Cheeks Xlgimay 10 _EC5 01RM C.Nnral
Overlay DtWd -EDB$ 0 PDXR1
PWwi,ii El R1
Comerxrcml Arse .cra '• _� se.w>,..
Slamr Transporteton Corridor ETJ FN
AR GC4 _T1
2.b. What are the Future Land Uses for Focus Areas "A" and "B" based on Orange County's Future Land
Use Map (FLUM)?
The future land uses for Focus Area A is a mix of Economic Development Transition (lavender on the map) and a small
portion of Commercial-Industrial Transition (deep purple) on the east end. The future land use of Focus Area B is Rural
Residential (yellow). It is important to note that the northernmost end of Focus Area B has been annexed into Mebane's
municipal jurisdiction (dark grey).
Outreach Focus Areas A and B-Future Land Use
I I
n
p
_ ��.w_
r
• . r
Qoutreach Focus Areas y r `�
—10 Year Transition _ o k t
7Q Year hansition - -
Rural Residential '-
Agrvcultural ResideNial
City Limits
r
ETJ Q
—Commercial-Industrial Transi[lon
Economic Development Tr—noon
Straarns
T �-�
Water eodles
Wet.,Supply Watersheds Crldcal Areas
p WamrseppryWarEr,neds
Resource Protection Areas
49
2.c. Where are the existing water and sewer utilities in this area located?
The existing water and sewer utilities are located both north and south of the Focus Areas A and B. In the map below,
the existing water lines are delineated by the checkered blue line;the dark green line indicates existing gravity sewer
lines while the lighter green lines indicate force sewer lines.
Outreach Focus Areas A and B-Utilities
} .
F—
L
_ .
p M r
1ti� tip_-+► _- � 1� I
a
Q
I
sawmaro ao .. ..
it
F-1 Outreach Focus Areas A
0 Outreach Focus Areas B
Existing Sewer Force Main v '
�y ao
—Existing Sewer Gravity
Existing Wafer Lines \
2.d. How do water and sewer utilities affect growth?
In most cases, development will only occur where there are sufficient utilities in order for businesses to operate. It can
be inferred that businesses are most likely to develop in areas where the utilities are present or planned while areas
lacking utilities are not of interest to development, even if there are other attractive attributes to businesses.
2.e. Will Areas C, D and E remain viable for development?
Approximately, one-third of Area C and a relatively small part of Are E,west of the 1-85/US70-Connector, are located in
areas that are consistent with the existing Orange County Future Land Use Map and remain viable for non-residential
development. Area D is not consistent with the existing Orange County Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and is not viable
for non-residential development. Presently the BOCC has not requested any changes to the FLUM. Areas C, D, and E all
have area in the Orange County Critical Watershed, which presents additional limitations for development. There is
nothing that prohibits the development of properties located within Areas C, D, and E that is consistent with the existing
FLUM and Zoning, which currently support areas for low-density residential development. The City of Mebane's
Comprehensive Land Development Plan also provides insight into potential development in the Study area.
3. Balance of Goals — Environmental, Economic and Equity in Services
3.a. Were there environmental considerations as a function of the technical study?
Yes. Mebane and its surrounding area have relatively few slope constraints, which would make potential land
development more difficult or expensive. No development has been encouraged on environmental wetlands, and areas
that limit development—particularly wetlands and flood zones—were removed from analysis.
50
Preservation areas including Voluntary Agricultural Districts (VADs), Conservation Easements, and National Heritage
Element Occurrences (NHEOs), all of which were given negative values during the technical GIS analysis. VADs are
voluntary and can be opted out of whereas conservation easements are permanent legal agreements that limit the uses
of land in order to protect its conservation values. The only parcel with a conservation easement in the Buckhorn Area
Study was the Soccer.com Center, east of Gravelly Hill Middle School,which was not included in the analysis. All NHEO
parcels, areas where land or water is important for the conservation of natural biodiversity, fall outside of the Focus
Areas A and B.
3.b. Were there watershed considerations as a function of the technical study?
Yes. Areas that fall within the State's critical water supply watersheds were clipped to be not included in the study
meaning that there was never intent to even explore these critical areas. While Orange County's locally-designated
critical areas are not regulated by the NC Department of Environmental Quality—and,therefore, are not included in the
study as a whole—both Focus Area A and B lie west of the County's critical area. As such, both Focus Areas lie outside of
the critical watershed area for the State as well as the critical watershed area for Orange County.
3.c. Is Orange County compliant with the State's requirements for the Protected and Critical Areas of
the Upper Eno Watershed?
Yes. The State's Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources, Department of Environmental Quality, recently
confirmed that Orange County is meeting its requirements and in some cases is more stringent. For additional detail,
including a comprehensive description of the County's watershed program, a white paper has been made available at
the following link: https://www.orangecountync.gov/DocumentCenter/View/15859/County-Watershed-Plan---Final-
Draft-Memo?bidld=.
3.d. Were there social considerations as a function of the technical study?
Yes. Small-lot residential areas in the study were identified and mapped. In an effort to preserve rural residential
appeal, buffering these residential areas from light and noise was intended to be defined and applied to protect
residents' quality of life and is stipulated as recommendations at the end of the study. Additionally, parcels that were
already developed with social significance—schools, churches, cemeteries—were also removed from analytical
consideration.
3.e. Is Gravelly Hill Middle School labelled on the maps included in the Study?
Yes. The location of Gravelly Hill Middle School is shown on several of the maps in the Study, including on the cover
page. Gravelly Hill Middle School is also mentioned in the text of the Study on p. 66.
3.f. Were there economic development considerations as a function of the technical study?
Yes. The study area from the Buckhorn Area Study includes the entire Buckhorn Economic Development District (BEDD),
a dedicated development district created in 2011 by Orange County and the City of Mebane. Metrics to consider the
most 'highly developable' parcels took into consideration factors such as average (mean) slope,total number of
developable acres, access to water and sewer infrastructure, interstate access and visibility, roadway access and
proximity to existing rail; all of these attributes and the resulting highest-scoring parcels from the analysis were used to
inform where economic development could take place in the area.
3.g. Were there traffic considerations as a function of the technical study?
Yes. While interstate access and interstate visibility were metrics that were measured as a function of the analysis,
recommendations were made in order to keep traffic along West Ten Road manageable, particularly because Gravelly
Hill Middle School lies near the center of West Ten Road.
The City of Mebane will continue to require a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)for applications for preliminary plat or
rezoning requests that anticipate generating 100 or more peak-hour vehicle trips or 1,000 or more average daily trips
51
(ADT). It was noted in the study that primary access points should be directed to West Ten Road and Buckhorn Road
and away from Bushy Cook Road and Mt. Willing Road. As an additional consideration for the improvement of traffic
flow and safety, a shared driveway requirement for contiguous non-residential uses is to be considered when feasible to
do so.
3.h. Will any development along Buckhorn Road cause removal of the Washington Street and
Washington Street Extension?
No. There are no plans, studies, projects or anything else that would remove access to E. Washington Street and the E.
Washington Street extension from Buckhorn Road. Any potential realignment of Buckhorn Road would maintain
connection to E. Washington Street both east and west of Buckhorn Road.
3.i. Can West Ten Road Handle Truck Traffic?
According to NCDOT staff, West Ten Road is built for mixed traffic including trucks. As a result of the land use analysis
that was included in the Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane (EBM)Access Management Plan* (2019), Orange County is
recommending roadway improvements to West Ten Road including larger lanes and wider paved shoulders. This is
currently an unfunded project which Orange County will continue to pursue through the NCDOT prioritization process
for funding consideration. This is handled separately from more localized road improvements that may need to occur
through the implementation of development specific Traffic Impact Analyses (TIAs).
*The process to prepare the EBM Access Management Plan also include public outreach, Planning Board
recommendation, and BOCC adoption (04/02/2019).
4. Inter-Local Cooperation
4.a. Does Orange County have joint planning agreements with Mebane?
No. Orange County and the City of Mebane are interested in working together and will continue to do so for
geographies of mutual interest. While there is not a joint planning agreement between the two entities, Orange County
and the City of Mebane do have a Utility Services Agreement that was amended in 2012. Mebane is not a signatory to
the Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA). WASMPBA is a multi-party
agreement among Orange County, Orange Water and Sewer Authority(OWASA), and the towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill,
and Hillsborough; WASMPBA establishes a system of service areas for public water and sewer utilities. Even without an
agreement, both entities are interested in pursuing collaboration on projects.
5. Annexation
5.a. How does annexation work in North Carolina?
North Carolina has three (3) statutory methods of municipal annexation:
1. Voluntary annexation of contiguous areas (G.S. 160A-31 and 31.1)
2. Voluntary annexation of noncontiguous areas (G.S. 160A-58 through -58.8)
3. Involuntary annexation of contiguous areas, subject to urban development standards, mandatory service
provisions, and a referendum requiring approval by a majority of voters in the area to be annexed (G.S. 160A-
58.50 through -58.63).
52
5.b. Is the Buckhorn Area Study a precursor to involuntary annexation?
No. There has never been a plan in the area for involuntary annexation of any properties.
5.c. Is the Buckhorn Area Study a precursor to voluntary annexation?
No. The Buckhorn Area Study is a technical study of future land use and potential utility services to identify properties
that could be zoned for nonresidential purposes and best support economic development while balancing the costs of
utility service extensions. In the case that a property owner was interested in development,that property owner or a
developer(working with the property owner) would only seek out annexation if the property owner/developer sought
out the utilities for development.
5.d. What is Mebane's role in annexation, and how does that affect the development approval
process?
In order for potential developments to receive sewer and water utilities,there is usually an agreement in place where a
the developer will voluntarily annex the property into Mebane's municipal jurisdiction. Mebane is not interested in non-
voluntary annexation.
If a property is being developed in Orange County (outside of the municipal jurisdictions that lie within Orange County)
and does not seek sewer and water utilities,then the property in question will go through the development approval
process according to Orange County's standards that are outlined in the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
However, if a property is seeking annexation into Mebane then it is Mebane's development process that the
development will follow according to Mebane's standards as outlined in their UDO.
Outreach Focus Areas A and B - Future Land Use Attachment 4 53
1011. awlZ
If?*_.-41
70 r �i
cn
N
-
•
r j lid
A
Q •
z
x
Y
U _
Outreach Focus Areas iR -
wr=sr z�nr
-
10 Year Transition -'
20 Year Transition
Rural Residential
Agricultural Residential a
City Limits
ETJ -
- Commercial-industrial Transition c� -
� 4
Economic Development Transition c?� -
Streams
- Water Bodies
® Water Supply Watersheds Critical Areas o, — n n=+.Sao feet
RANGE
ee
Water Supply Watersheds _ cOurvrr o ,,$0
Planning and Inspections Department{BQ
- Resource Protection Areas 4I2612a2,