Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Since these areas are not part of a city and therefore no city voting rights, before potential <br /> annexation, general statutes recognize the need for ETJ representation on city planning & board <br /> of adjustment boards. The county makes such appointments. <br /> Orange County does not have a specific policy on ETJ requests since the County and cities <br /> have formed other planning mechanisms to ensure orderly development in these adjacent city <br /> zones. The joint planning agreements have promoted this planning and growth collaboration. <br /> However, since ETJ areas do and can provide additional supplemental powers to a city beyond <br /> a joint planning area authority, ETJ expansion is still viable and preferred in some instances. <br /> Therein, a draft review policy is attached to evaluate ETJ requests. This policy can be <br /> augmented over time. <br /> Craig Benedict said Orange County does not have an ETJ approval policy, because over <br /> the years, the County has dealt with planning in and around cities in a different manner. He <br /> said tonight he is providing an overview of the minimums that are mandated by statutes, and <br /> Orange County's interest may go a little bit beyond that. He said there has been a variety of <br /> small area planning groups as part of the Rogers Road and Chapel Hill project. He said all of <br /> this can be used as a good example for the future if there are other ETJ expansion requests. <br /> He asked the Board to take a look at the draft policy. He noted that this could be <br /> augmented over time, and he said some counties go beyond the minimum. He briefly read <br /> through some of the points in the draft policy on pages 2 and 3 of the abstract. <br /> Commissioner Price said that there is a note that residents and property owners can <br /> comment, and she would like to include businesses here. She would also like to change the <br /> wording that says comments "may" be included, to say that comments "shall" be included in the <br /> consideration. She said it is important that anyone living in the affected area has a chance to <br /> speak and have their comments considered. <br /> Commissioner Price referred to page 3 and said she would like to have the statement <br /> about provision of municipal services be clearer. She said there may need to be a policy that if <br /> residents are to be part of a municipal district, they will have the services. She said she is open <br /> to discussion on this, but it should be specified. <br /> Commissioner Price asked if the reference to growth management areas and the <br /> location requirement that "its" closest point be within 2 miles of the jurisdiction. She asked what <br /> "it" refers to. <br /> Craig Benedict said that refers to a border. He said she has touched on a point where <br /> there has been some change in legislative thought about annexations and ETJ. He said <br /> annexations are more difficult now, and the requirement for public services in annexed areas <br /> has changed. He will try to analyze this. <br /> Commissioner Gordon asked if the ETJ rules have also changed. <br /> Craig Benedict said not as much, but they are more specific on representation. He said <br /> this was a harbinger of the possible removal of ETJs. He said there will likely be a more <br /> elaborate process for the appointment of ETJ representatives. <br /> Commissioner Gordon referred to page 3 on pre-submittal. She said it states that the <br /> idea goes from the elected board of the municipality to the County via the clerk and/or the <br />