Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
19 <br />October 12, 2009 Regular Meeting <br />Approved: November 9, 2009 <br />Page 15 of 39 <br />Mr. Peterson said regarding water capacity, still looking at the orange area below I-40, the way <br />the water numbers currently looked he did not believe they had enough water to serve all of that <br />orange area unless something happened to change that. So, he said, he believed they were really <br />looking at a smaller orange area. Mr. Peterson said he believed they were all ultimately looking <br />towards the same goal, and believed the interest of joint planning and wanting both the Town <br />and the County to be happy with ultimately what would be out there was good, as well as <br />figuring out the mechanisms to achieve that. But, he said, he believed that some of the other <br />mechanisms that were included would cause problems for all of them, greater than what they <br />may anticipate. <br />8:21:37 PM Mr. Hornik said there was also a potential problem with annexation timing. He <br />said if a developer decided to petition and conveyed lots out before annexation, that developer no <br />longer had the right to say yes to annexation with respect to those properties that he had. <br />conveyed out. Mr. Hornik said the law was that at the time of public hearing, you had to have <br />signatures on a petition of all owners of property in the annexation area. He said he knew of one <br />instance where ten years after development a jurisdiction had tried to do a voluntary annexation <br />involving property owners who were the third owner of the property after the developer, and they <br />had no idea whatsoever that they were claimed to have voluntarily signed a petition for <br />annexation. Mr. Hornik said there was a current case in the State court on that very issue, so that <br />was something they needed to be very careful about. He said his point was he did not know if <br />you could accept a petition for voluntary annexation from a developer and then six years from <br />now proceed with the annexation, in that he was not sure you could do the voluntary annexation <br />if the developer had conveyed some of that property to someone else. <br />Mr. Benedict said perhaps that clause was making much ado about nothing. He said the bottom <br />line was that those areas were on the fringe within an urban growth boundary into which the <br />County was agreeing to allow the Town to expand their ETJ. Mr. Benedict said it was by no <br />means a restriction to their development potential in the future, but was actually an expansion. <br />He said they were developing an urban services boundary that was more in tune with the Town's <br />water allocation program, and it gave clarity to people both inside the urban service line and <br />outside that line. Mr. Benedict said there was a potential for water if you were inside the blue <br />and orange and ETJ areas, but if you were outside that line then do not ask for water and sewer. <br />Mr. Benedict said concerning annexation, the voluntary annexation petition would outline that <br />they could not disclose a property that would have people fall out of that voluntary annexation <br />agreement. He said if you wanted to lock it into a developer's agreement which was allowed by <br />State law you could specifically say that they would provide water and sewer, that annexation <br />would take place at -some time to be determined, and that annexation would occur before any <br />transfer of land. <br />8:24:51 PM. Mayor Stevens said the only purpose of having the annexation follow at the back <br />end as opposed to the front end would be because if it was annexed then it would become part of <br />their planning process. Mr. Benedict replied yes, that was the only difference. Mayor Stevens <br />said then the only purpose it served would that it would get handled by a County department. <br />Mr. Benedict said that was the only difference. Mayor Stevens said if they were agreeing to <br />15 <br />