Browse
Search
Agenda - 01-22-2015 - 6a
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2015
>
Agenda - 01-22-2015 - Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 01-22-2015 - 6a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/29/2015 12:23:11 PM
Creation date
1/16/2015 3:00:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
1/22/2015
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
6-a
Document Relationships
Minutes 01-22-2015
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
128
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
16 <br />1 elaborate process for the appointment of ETJ representatives. <br />2 Commissioner Gordon referred to page 3 on pre - submittal. She said it states that the <br />3 idea goes from the elected board of the municipality to the County via the clerk and /or the <br />4 manager. She said it seems better to her to be very definite about what needs to be done, and <br />5 take out the "and /or." She said the syntax here was not clear. <br />6 Commissioner Gordon said she would edit number 2 in the pre - submittal process to <br />7 include the term "in accordance with state statute." <br />8 Commissioner Gordon said Item D, number 1 should specify "Orange County" Planning <br />9 Board. <br />10 Commissioner Gordon said she is glad to see this policy being considered. <br />11 Commissioner Dorosin said the Rogers Road proposal is related but separate from this <br />12 issue. He said it would be in the best interest to expedite the Rogers Road process even if this <br />13 is not finalized. <br />14 He said one thing that is important moving forward is to have language suggesting that <br />15 ETJs should not remain ETJs forever. He said this is not fair to the residents. <br />16 Commissioner Pelissier said she would like to have a copy of the comments that were <br />17 made to the Chapel Hill Town Council regarding this particular case. <br />18 Craig Benedict said he will include as much information as staff can get. He said, by <br />19 December 1 st they should have the Chapel Hill ETJ expansion request. <br />20 Chair Jacobs said he had asked staff in March to come back with an analysis of the way <br />21 rules have changed for ETJs. He would like to have this. <br />22 Chair Jacobs said he thought that joint planning appointments were to be changed to <br />23 ETJ appointments. He asked for clarification on this. <br />24 Craig Benedict said there are joint planning area representatives on the Chapel Hill <br />25 Planning Board. He said there will be a process to have ETJ representatives voted on by <br />26 Orange County to sit on the Chapel Hill Planning Board. <br />27 Chair Jacobs said the joint planning area and this ETJ are not synonymous. <br />28 Craig Benedict said a thousand acres of Chapel Hill's joint area will possibly be <br />29 converted to ETJ, and there will be one small joint planning area (JPA) left over. He said <br />30 representation for both of these is based on population. He said there is currently one JPA seat <br />31 left. <br />32 Commissioner Rich asked how many ETJs are currently in Chapel Hill <br />33 Craig Benedict said there are a few general areas outside of corporate town limits — the <br />34 southern triangle rural buffer area; Rogers Road and Northwoods; the Triangle north of <br />35 interstate 40 near Sunrise Road; and a small area north of Interstate 40 behind New Hope <br />36 Commons and the Wal -Mart complex. <br />37 Commissioner Rich said it seems like there are a lot of different areas that might not <br />38 have representation on a board. <br />39 Chair Jacobs said it would be helpful to bring a map that shows the areas with the <br />40 acreage. <br />41 John Roberts said the statute provides for ETJ representation based on a mathematical <br />42 calculation, so until a certain threshold is reached, there is no obligation to add anyone. He said <br />43 the County could request an addition. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.