Browse
Search
Agenda - 11-19-2007-4
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2007
>
Agenda - 11-19-2007
>
Agenda - 11-19-2007-4
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/1/2008 11:45:27 PM
Creation date
8/28/2008 10:32:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
11/19/2007
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
4
Document Relationships
Minutes - 11-19-2007 Late
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2007
Minutes - 20071119
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
DRAFT <br />51 project capital improvement needs but Mebane is not subject to deferring their development if <br />52 capacity was an issue. <br />53 <br />54 Michelle Kempinski: One of the issues with the Efiland-Mebane task force was annexation. Is <br />55 there any agreement as how far Mebane can come into Orange County? <br />56 <br />57 Craig Benedict: State laws allows liberal municipal annexation rights. <br />58 <br />59 Renee Price: Who initiates the project and when does citizen input come in? <br />60 <br />61 Craig Benedict: The interesting part of the North Carolina law is that areas in the ETJ area are <br />62 not necessarily part of the city at some point in the future. A development can ask for <br />63 annexation but the town can actually approve the entire proposal from a zoning and subdivision <br />64 standpoint and never annex it. <br />65 <br />66 Renee: What about taxation? <br />67 <br />68 Judith Wegner: Whose decision? Sometimes it's the developer. <br />69 <br />70 Craig Benedict: That is correct. As far as developed properties, it is Hillsborough's decision. . <br />71 <br />72 Renee Price: This is part of the ETJ that extends into the county, which is not part of the ETJ so <br />73 this is an area that should get a Courtesy Review. <br />74 <br />75 Craig Benedict: This part will get Courtesy Review. <br />76 <br />77 Jay Bryan: I have a concern that the Courtesy Review does not afford citizens that are <br />78 members of the county living in the transition areas adequate protection, input, etc. It is implied <br />79 that Courtesy Review is some form of protection. I have 2 handouts to share with you. There <br />80 are a couple of problems. This is nat a legitimized process but it is not spelled out in an <br />81 ordinance. My emphasis is to find out how we can strengthen this process for the citizen that is <br />82 affected.. There should be a way to allow Public Hearings in situations where there is a rezoning <br />83 of significant extent. There could be a mini planning board to comment on different rezoning. <br />84 <br />85 Michelle Kempinski: You are referring to projects where there is a special or condition use <br />86 permit, correct? <br />$7 <br />88 Jay Bryan: In item #2 on page 55. As far as what can be reviewed, you can see the range of <br />89 the types of projects. <br />90 <br />91 Michelle Kempinski: I was thinking of the zoning tax that would be different so if the County had <br />92 something to say it would be the municipality-zoning ordinance that would apply. It is more <br />93 flexible when you are talking about conditional and special use permit. <br />94 <br />95 Jay Bryan: That is true so when you have strong Courtesy Review process that involves <br />96 community input. <br />97 <br />98 Brian Crawford: Even in those cases, they still have an opportunity to voice their concerns. <br />99 <br />10 <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.