Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
15 <br />1 own review policies to assist in an orderly transition from rural to urban environments whether <br />2 the area is annexed or not into the adjacent city. <br />3 <br />4 Since these areas are not part of a city and therefore no city voting rights, before potential <br />5 annexation, general statutes recognize the need for ETJ representation on city planning & board <br />6 of adjustment boards. The county makes such appointments. <br />7 <br />8 Orange County does not have a specific policy on ETJ requests since the County and cities <br />9 have formed other planning mechanisms to ensure orderly development in these adjacent city <br />10 zones. The joint planning agreements have promoted this planning and growth collaboration. <br />11 However, since ETJ areas do and can provide additional supplemental powers to a city beyond <br />12 a joint planning area authority, ETJ expansion is still viable and preferred in some instances. <br />13 Therein, a draft review policy is attached to evaluate ETJ requests. This policy can be <br />14 augmented over time. <br />15 <br />16 Craig Benedict said Orange County does not have an ETJ approval policy, because over <br />17 the years, the County has dealt with planning in and around cities in a different manner. He <br />18 said tonight he is providing an overview of the minimums that are mandated by statutes, and <br />19 Orange County's interest may go a little bit beyond that. He said there has been a variety of <br />20 small area planning groups as part of the Rogers Road and Chapel Hill project. He said all of <br />21 this can be used as a good example for the future if there are other ETJ expansion requests. <br />22 He asked the Board to take a look at the draft policy. He noted that this could be <br />23 augmented over time, and he said some counties go beyond the minimum. He briefly read <br />24 through some of the points in the draft policy on pages 2 and 3 of the abstract. <br />25 Commissioner Price said that there is a note that residents and property owners can <br />26 comment, and she would like to include businesses here. She would also like to change the <br />27 wording that says comments "may" be included, to say that comments "shall" be included in the <br />28 consideration. She said it is important that anyone living in the affected area has a chance to <br />29 speak and have their comments considered. <br />30 Commissioner Price referred to page 3 and said she would like to have the statement <br />31 about provision of municipal services be clearer. She said there may need to be a policy that if <br />32 residents are to be part of a municipal district, they will have the services. She said she is open <br />33 to discussion on this, but it should be specified. <br />34 Commissioner Price asked if the reference to growth management areas and the <br />35 location requirement that "its" closest point be within 2 miles of the jurisdiction. She asked what <br />36 "it" refers to. <br />37 Craig Benedict said that refers to a border. He said she has touched on a point where <br />38 there has been some change in legislative thought about annexations and ETJ. He said <br />39 annexations are more difficult now, and the requirement for public services in annexed areas <br />40 has changed. He will try to analyze this. <br />41 Commissioner Gordon asked if the ETJ rules have also changed. <br />42 Craig Benedict said not as much, but they are more specific on representation. He said <br />43 this was a harbinger of the possible removal of ETJs. He said there will likely be a more <br />