OCPB minutes 020415 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 3/4/15 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 109 take on that. So now if people have questions for Craig. 110 111 Paul Guthrie: Couple of things, on page 19 when you go through the submittal and the Planning Board review 112 process you indiscriminately put ‘will’ in a few places and ‘shall’ in other places when you get down to the language 113 between the City of Chapel Hill and the County, you may want to put ‘shall’ in more places than ‘will’. That’s old 114 statute writing issues. The second general question in the planning process and the host jurisdiction and so forth, 115 and this is a personal comment since it happened to me. The County Board of Commissioners appointed me to the 116 Chapel Hill Planning Board. Chapel Hill Planning Board redesigned its membership and declined to make the 117 appointment. Essentially they picked who they wanted, not who the County Commissioners wanted, so make sure of 118 your language when you write the agreement, as to how you want that representation so it can’t be gamed. 119 120 Craig Benedict: I think what we’ll also look at in the case of ETJ representation, are there distinct areas. I think one 121 of the issues in Chapel Hill there’s Rogers Road that should be represented. That’s a new area and yet there’s an 122 area in southeast Chapel Hill which seems to be in your area that also wants representation because there is a 123 different growth potential there. 124 125 Paul Guthrie: In my case they appointed someone from Durham, on the east side. 126 127 Craig Benedict: Let’s take a look at the fine writing in this and make sure that doesn’t happen. 128 129 Tony Blake: When I read this it didn’t seem to cover the eventuality where we have an ETJ from another city, like 130 Durham or Mebane, into Orange County. Would we have a person sitting on a Durham Planning Board or something 131 like that? Second comment, when you say ‘shall’ or ‘will’, I would also like to have a timeline in there. These people 132 can’t vote for the town council or what have you and they are disenfranchised. I think it should have a timeline of 133 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 134 a town government and the other thing was I always thought we should outline the services. In some cases in the 135 ETJ, they extend the school system out there but they don’t extend the water and sewer, they don’t extend this, that 136 and the other thing, and if you look at this SAPFO funding everybody in Orange County wants to talk about this being 137 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 138 like water and sewer, transportation it’s those other adequate funding items that Orange County tends to put their 139 blinders on and Chapel Hill tends to put their blinders on and say it’s just schools. It would be good to have an 140 outline of what services should be extended. 141 142 Pete Hallenbeck: I’m fuzzy on the timeline concept. 143 144 Tony Blake: For example, there are areas in the County that have been in the ETJ for 30 years or more and it seems 145 to me as if those folks have been disenfranchised. People’s property rights are being restricted by people they 146 cannot vote for. 147 148 Pete Hallenbeck: So you want a use it or lose it timeframe. 149 150 Tony Blake: I want a use it or lose it timeframe, yes. 151 152 Lisa Stuckey: I thought the legislature made it really hard to annex? 153 154 Paul Guthrie: They have. 155 156 Lisa Stuckey: I don’t think a timeline would work. 157 158 Tony Blake: They’ve made it more difficult for the towns to annex but they’ve made it easier for the developers to 159 demand to be annexed. 160 161