OCPB agenda 030415 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

D R A F T 3 you don’t like. The last one is the rules for farms are different because there are state laws that kick in. That was my take on that. So now if people have questions for Craig. Paul Guthrie: Couple of things, on page 19 when you go through the submittal and the Planning Board review process you indiscriminately put ‘will’ in a few places and ‘shall’ in other places when you get down to the language between the City of Chapel Hill and the County, you may want to put ‘shall’ in more places than ‘will’. That’s old statute writing issues. The second general question in the planning process and the host jurisdiction and so forth, and this is a personal comment since it happened to me. The County Board of Commissioners appointed me to the Chapel Hill Planning Board. Chapel Hill Planning Board redesigned its membership and declined to make the appointment. Essentially they picked who they wanted, not who the County Commissioners wanted, so make sure of your language when you write the agreement, as to how you want that representation so it can’t be gamed. Craig Benedict: I think what we’ll also look at in the case of ETJ representation, are there distinct areas. I think one of the issues in Chapel Hill there’s Rogers Road that should be represented. That’s a new area and yet there’s an area in southeast Chapel Hill which seems to be in your area that also wants representation because there is a different growth potential there. Paul Guthrie: In my case they appointed someone from Durham, on the east side. Craig Benedict: Let’s take a look at the fine writing in this and make sure that doesn’t happen. Tony Blake: When I read this it didn’t seem to cover the eventuality where we have an ETJ from another city, like Durham or Mebane, into Orange County. Would we have a person sitting on a Durham Planning Board or something like that? Second comment, when you say ‘shall’ or ‘will’, I would also like to have a timeline in there. These people can’t vote for the town council or what have you and they are disenfranchised. I think it should have a timeline of some sort to say that it will annex and these people will be given the right to vote or right to exercise their choices for a town government and the other thing was I always thought we should outline the services. In some cases in the ETJ, they extend the school system out there but they don’t extend the water and sewer, they don’t extend this, that and the other thing, and if you look at this SAPFO funding everybody in Orange County wants to talk about this being a school thing and it is primarily a school thing but it is also other infrastructure if you read the statute, it is also things like water and sewer, transportation it’s those other adequate funding items that Orange County tends to put their blinders on and Chapel Hill tends to put their blinders on and say it’s just schools. It would be good to have an outline of what services should be extended. Pete Hallenbeck: I’m fuzzy on the timeline concept. Tony Blake: For example, there are areas in the County that have been in the ETJ for 30 years or more and it seems to me as if those folks have been disenfranchised from voting for people that are determining their ability to develop or expand or do anything to their property without being able to vote for them. Pete Hallenbeck: So you want a use it or lose it timeframe. Tony Blake: I want a use it or lose it timeframe, yeah. Lisa Stuckey: I thought the legislature made it really hard to annex? Paul Guthrie: They have. Lisa Stuckey: I don’t think a timeline would work. Tony Blake: They’ve made it more difficult for the towns to annex but they’ve made it easier for the developers to demand to be annexed. 7