Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
04d <br /> 9 <br /> have to take a "leap-of-faith" . <br /> Jacobs said there are two separate things here: <br /> One is the binding agreement about the OWASA study and <br /> the other is about Carrboro' s commitment to its own <br /> zoning. <br /> Jacobs suggested going back to the original condition <br /> that Chapel Hill authored and change the word <br /> "assurances" to "will supply a binding agreement" and <br /> then the same recommendations the staff has plus the <br /> recommendation about representation of the people in the <br /> Transition Areas on the Planning Boards. Perhaps we <br /> should include the Boards of Adjustment also. <br /> Jacobs asked if there was a motion at this point? <br /> MOTION: Eddleman moved that the Board make a recommendation as <br /> stated by Jacobs. Seconded by Taylor. <br /> General discussion followed about the possibility of <br /> annexation and development densities in the area. <br /> Collins clarified by saying that if citizens petition for <br /> annexation, density would not be that big a factor. If <br /> annexation was at the initiative of the town, density of <br /> development could have a real impact since state statutes <br /> specify population. density, and subdivided acreage <br /> thresholds. It is important to remember that the town <br /> would have to extend urban services to any area it <br /> annexed. <br /> Jacobs asked Collins his opinion about trying to preclude <br /> annexation in the Transition Area. <br /> Collins responded that this goes back to the County <br /> Attorney' s statement Unless you've got enabling legis- <br /> lation to give you the power to restrict that. all it is <br /> is a gentlemen' s agreement ' . If a lucrative project <br /> comes along the potential is there to forget about the <br /> gentlemen' s agreement and annex it. The whole issue that <br /> the County Attorney raised is how binding is a binding <br /> agreement in the absence of enabling legislation to give <br /> you the power to enforce. <br /> Jacobs stated there was a motion which had been seconded. <br /> VOTE: 4 in favor (Eddleman, Walters. Taylor, Jacobs) <br /> 6 opposed (Kramer, Pilkey. Lewis. Hubbard. Margison. <br /> Swann) <br /> Jacobs asked if there was another motion? <br /> Walters asked if the opposing votes would care to <br /> elaborate on why they voted no? <br />