Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-15-1979 e �r STATEMENT ON EXTRATERRITORIAL PLANNING JURISDICTION BY ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Because of recent developments, it is important that the Orange County Board of Commissioners issue this brief history and statement of its position on extraterritorial planning jurisdiction for Chapel Hill. Chapel Hill's request for a 3-mile extension was carefully reviewed by the County Commissioners, the Orange County Planning Board and Staff, the Chapel Hill Township Advisory Council, and the public in public hearing, The Commissioners adopted a resolution on October 24, 1978 to transfer to Chapel Hill's jurisdiction that portion of the requested land classified "Transition" on the County's Land Classification Map. The decision was based on sound con- siderations including annexation projections, practicality of extending urban., type services (the area is bordered on the north by a drainage divide), pending commercial re-zoning requests, protection of mobile home dwellers, citizens' basic right of political recourse (the areas lie outside town voting district), recognition of the County's planning responsibilities and confidence in its planning ability, and the County's hope for initiating a coordinated county/town planning effort for the areas of concern. The proposed transfer was accompanied by a request for a meeting as soon as possible with the Chapel Hill Town Council to explain this reasoning, to discuss implementation of the transfer, and to initiate a joint planning effort with Chapel Hill to identify the concerns and to devise suitable mechanisms for addressing those needs. This invitation was not acd1epted, and the Commissioners received no response to the transfer proposal. At its meeting on December 4, the Board of Commissioners once again officially requested such a ,joint meeting to no avail. On January 30, without prior consultation, the Mayor of Chapel Hill presented a three-part proposal to the Chapel Hill Town Council: 1) approval of a Southern By-Pass, 2) withdrawal from the I-40 lawsuit, and 3) a request to the General Assembly to increase the Town's planning jurisdiction beyond that agreed to by the County. After linking the planning extension to the two highway matters, the Mayor suggested that the Department of Transportation's important leverage in the General Assembly could help get this additional planning jurisdiction for the Town. The Commissioners agreed, on short notice, to a late afternoon meeting with the Town Council on February 6th. The meeting produced a sub-committee with two members from each Board and a very general assignment to discuss these issues and bring reports and recommendations back to the Boards. However, Chapel Hill's Council has scheduled a February 19th meeting to make a decision about requesting the planning extension from the General Assembly. It has been suggested by several members of the Town Council that while the sub- committee discussions are going on, the Town could also request the legislation, as added insurance, and that such an act should not be interpreted as antagonistic. Regardless of the intent, the practical result of such an action would be the same it would place the Town and the County in adverse positions_ If there is any doubt whether the Board of Commissioners would oppose such legislation, let all doubt be removed now. The Orange County Commissioners are unanimously opposed to the North Carolina General Assembly overriding a carefully considered planning decision made by this Board under the authority given to it, and to the County Board of Commissioners throughout the State, by the General Assembly in 1971 (G. S. 160A 360). We believe that state legislators will -2- P,-t understand this position. Such a request would change the character of this matter from a planning issue to a political issue. To suggest that it should pose no problem because it could be withdrawn at any time is unrealistic from the County's point of view. We would feel a need to activate our opposition immediately. The County re-emphasizes its desire to cooperate with Chapel Hill in jointly planning these areas. Our delegates to the new sub-committee have reiterated this desire and have offered specific suggestions for getting it underway. A request to the General Assembly would indicate the Town's desire to move in a different direction and could seriously endanger such joint planning efforts. It could also impede progress in the Southern By-Pass issue with those residents who would be dually affected. And it would certainly tend to increase the urban-rural tensions across our County. The Board of Commissioners recognizes the prerogative of the Town Council to choose such a course, and states its position clearly at this time in an effort to communicate the seriousness of this matter and to avoid misunderstanding. We also address this statement to the citizens of Orange County in response to the many concerns which have been expressed to us. Unanimously adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners this the 15th day of February, 1979, This is to certify that the above is a true and correct copy of so much of the minutes of the Orange County Board of Commissioner§' meeting on February 15, 1979. By: t ��� IrLLJ tyL3�L4.0 rl_4 Clerk to a Orange County Boa d of Commissioners -3- GRANGE COUN'T'Y COMMISSIONERS Doom No. 12 I06 EAST UARGA.RUr IANU MLz_sSoIt0UGH. N_C. 27278 RICHARD WftC[rro.Cbmr.n�r WORMANf WALKIM No"LkN GVSTAVE50H r]ONALD WILLHOCC ANNIZ BARNES February 15, 1979 Mr. Thomas �A. Bradshaw, Jr. Secretary Department of Transportation P. 0. Box 25201 Raleigh, NC 27611 Dear 4h:-8rad_shaw_; Much has been said recently about a proposed Southern By-Pass around Chapel Hill. Much also has been said about an alleged arrangement between the Department of Transportation and the Mayor of Chapel Hill, which goes something like this: Chapel Hill withdraws from the I-40 lawsuit, the Department of Transportation agrees to build the Southern By-Pass and uses its influence in the General Assembly to help the Town get extended planning ,jurisdiction beyond that which the County Commissioners recently approved. Enclosed is a recent newspaper report as background for this suggested scenario. The Orange County Commissioners would regard the State Department of Transportation's involving itself in a county extraterritorial planning matter highly inappropriate. It could also be interpreted as an affront to Boards of County Commissioners throughout the State, and particularly to the Orange County Board and the people it represents. It is unfortunate that this local planning extension issue, and your association with it, has been tied to the Southern By-Pass proposal . It is also regrettable that the Board of Commissioners has not been included in the DDT- UNC-Chapel Hill planning sessions even though your proposed corridor lies entirely outside the corporate limits of any municipality. Should the Commissioners assume at this point that DOT has no interest in Orange County's involvement regarding the By-Pass proposal? r r Mr. Thomas W. Bradshaw, Jr. Page 2 February 15, 1979 tie would not wish to make decisions based on rumor or mayoral exaggeration, and, therefore, request clarification from you in these matters. We would appreciate a meeting with you or a letter at your earliest opportunity. Sincerely, THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Richard E. Witted, Chairman ml b Enclosure cc + enc. The Honorable James Hunt The Honorable Ed Holmes The Honorable Patricia Hunt The Honorable Russell Walker The Honorable Charles Vickery Mr. William Friday, President, UNC The Honorable J. T. Knott President, NC Association of County Commissioners Chancellor Ferebee Taylor AGENDA ITEM r13 NORTH CAROLINA MEMORANDUM OF E14PLOYMENT ORANGE COUNTY THIS MEMORANDUM is submitted, showing the agreement by and bet0een COLEMAN, BERNHOLZ AND DICKERSON, Attorneys at Law, Orange County, North Carolina, hereinafter referred to as ATTORNE s, and ORANGE COUNTY, North Carolina, hereinafter, referred to as r COUNTY: W I T N E S S E T H 1. The ATTORNEYS now perform legal services and render advice to the COUNTY on such occasions as may be required to properly and adequately represent the COUNTY. 2. RETAINER SERVICES. The following services are performed by the ATTORNEYS for an annual retainer fee of $9,500.00� : a. Attending all public meetings and hearings of the Board of Commissioners. b. Foregoing representation of any party whose claim is adverse to or whose dispute is with the COUNTY, any COUNTY Board, agency, or employee while acting in his or her official capacity. The retainer fee is payable to the ATTORNEYS on July 1 for each year the ATTORNEYS are retained at the County's pleasure. 3. HOURLY SERVICES. Services are performed by the ATTORNEYS at an hourly .rate of $50.00 for work that includes research, preparation of documents, preparation for litigation, correspondence, conferences, contrast work, ordinance revisions and drafting, and all appearances on behalf of the COUNTY, its boards and agencies at any hearing or trial before any court or admini-- CO_. y,BERSHOU CKERSON strative tribunal. ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHAP$L HILL,H.C. HILLSBOROUGH MC. 4. All expenses and costs incurred as a result of the ATT014NEYS' representation of the COUNTY are paid by the COUNTY. Any expenses and costs advanced by the ATTORNEYS on behalf of the COUNTY are reimbursed by the COUNTY. 5. The ATTORNEYS bill the COUNTY regularly for hourly services and generally once each month. 6. Services provided by the ATTORNEYS include the ATTORNEYS' representation of the Orange County Department of Social. Services in its protective services work, Legal services provided to the COUNTY related to the Child Support and Enforcemen Pr'ogr'am under Title IV-D of the Social. Security Act and deliquent tax collection work. These services are performed by the ATTORNEYS and contractd for with the COUNTY separately. 7. The ATTORNEYS do not provide advice and counsel or in any other manner represent the Orange County Sheriff's Depart- ment in its .investigation and prosecution of criminal. actions. The Sheriff's Department obtains advice and counsel concerning such matters from the district attorney of the judicial district wherein Orange County lies as provided in N. Gen. Stat. §7A-E This the &day of 197 » COLEMADI j'aE 0 %FAN- CKER N f: BY: Alori?o Colem n, r. ,f_-,f-' neral Partner C 4 COLEMAN.BERNHOLZ a DICxERSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHAPEL HILL.N.C. N.ILLSSOROUGH.N.C. ' 4 rJ i P acu... _ „.. ..., R. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DERA.RTATENT MrX SEOROUGs NORTH CAROLINA 27w:8 'b�gn19 �b u .jerik ¢sr ti�°n MEMORANDUM TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners FROM: Planning Department DATE: February 5, 1979 SUBJECT: Progress Report on 1979-1980 Work Program A detailed work program has not yet been prepared for the 1979-1980 Work Program that will be based on the following work priorities: 1. Immediately extend zoning into Bingham Township along N. C. 54 using our present zoning ordinance 2. Complete a County Land Use Plan 3. Revise the existing zoning ordinance 4. Extend the revised zoning ordinance into Bingham, Hillsborough and Cheeks Township, in that order of priority, 5. Develop an intergovernmental long range planning council 6. Develop a watershed protection and water resource policy and plan LAND USE PLAN Enclosed is a draft of a tentative schedule of activities to implement the above work priorities. The schedule can be met, if no other major work activities intervene. The heart of the schedule is continued work on revision of the zoning ordinance throughtout 1979-1980 that is keyed in and directly related to progress on :the completion, of a land use plan. All existing land use plans in and for Orange County will be compiled into a document to be published in April to May. Based on this and the Preliminary Land Use Goals (scheduled for March) the first Sketch or Preliminary Land Use Plan itself will be in roughdraft form by August or September. After the Sketch Plan is published and has been reviewed, the second Growth Options Conference could be held, possibly in September to November. There- after, the final Land Use Plan would be prepared, possibly for completion in early spring, 1980. r�1 n Memo to: Board of County Commissioners Page 2 rebruary 5, 1979 ZONING ORDINANCE REVISION All work is based on the immediate initiation of a Technical Advisory Committee to revise the zoning ordinance. It seems to be a consensus that the Committee include 1 - 2 County Commissioners, 2 Planning Board members, and perhaps 1 Board of Adjustment member. The subject was discussed at the January Planning Board meeting and Dr. Bob Boaar requested volunteers. The Planning Board could perhaps nominate for appointment their two members by next meeting. PRESENT ZONING ORDINANCE EXTENSION ALONG N. C. 54 IN BINGHAM TOWNSHIP Planning Staff has requested legal advice on certain matters about the immediate extension. Our primary concern is how this temporary zoning effort will relate to our land use plan, especially when it probably be- comes necessary to zone the entire township in about one year. Another major problem is the American Stone Rock quarry and its existance relative to our extractive, use sections of the current zoning ordinance. Some of the other problems are: 1. What are the legal problems with currently zoning everything along N. C. 54 residential, and after the land use plan has been adopted, go back and zone it according to the land use plan? 2. If the Quarry is zoned Residential and becomes a non-conforming use does this mean, under section 12.2 of the zoning ordinance, the extractive use would have to stop at the present location or could it Continue to its property line boundary? 3. Does the Quarry need to get an extractive use permit if it is zoned residential and is this non-conforming? 4. If the Quarry is zoned aural Industrial or Rural. Processing, then it will need a special use permit. Will the Quarry need to comply with section 8 or 9 of the Ordinance immediately after the Commissioners pass the resolution to zone the area or can they be given one or two years to come in compliance? Nevertheless, as the tentative schedule indicates, staff feels this can be accomplished easily by June, or July, 1979. Memo to: Board of County Commissioners Page 3 February 5, 1979 WATERSHED PROTECTION TASK. FORCE Staff recommends this Task Force be set up as soon as possible. There are several issues the Board of County Commissioners should consider concern- ing membership, expertise of members, geographic coverage of County by members, and the various objectives such a Task Force could address. First, the set of issues surrounding expertise, membership, and geographic coverage of appointees could be addressed together. Should the Task Force be a purely technical committee and/or should it have represeatative(s) of the various governmental jurisdictions invblved (including Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Durham, Hillsborough, Hebane and Orange County) and/or should general citizen representative(s) of the governmental jurisdictions involved also be appointed. Other possible representative agencies include: -OT4ASA -Soil and Water Conservation Board --Orange County Rural Development Panel (includes USDA staff of Farmer's Home, SCS, ASCS, Agricultural Extension) --Private engineering firms-(ex. Rose, Pridgen. Wiggins, Rimer, etc.) -University of North Carolina -State of North Carolina - DOT -Farm Organizations (Farm Bureau, etc.) The governmental jurisdictions could appoint either 1 effected official.and/or 1 Planning Board member, and/or 1 staff person, and/or 1 or more citizen representatives. The following are tentative objectives that could be addressed by such a task force: - Evaluate the current Status of water quality and quantity in the watershed(s) 1. identify and assess point and non-point sources of pollution 2. identify important erosion and sedimentation sources - Identify alternative measures for protecting the watersbed(s) from deterioration in water quality and quantity -- Evaluate the feasibility of establishing a system of water quality monitoring for the watershed(s) - Identify and take measures to regulate any land uses in the watershed(s) which could damage the water supply in the event of a catastrophic accident (ex., Kepone manufacturing plant) - Evaluate the watersheds capability to accomodate future urban development while maintaining acceptable water quality and quantity - Develop an Overall strategy for the management of the watershed Memo to: Board of County Commissioners Page k February 5, 1979 AGRICULTURE/FARiJ PRESERVATION Staff has met with Dr. Paul Stone of the North Carolina Extension Service and is currently working with Mr. Evert Pierce, who is coordinating the Rural Development Panel, to establish a Task Force. The following; objectives are under consideration for such a Task Force: - preserve an important element of Orange County's economy -- preserve open space - preserve farming life-style -- preserve a valuable resource (prime farm land) permanently; slow conversion to other uses. - plan to minimize threats to farming operations from urban development ZONING EXTENSION The extension of the zoning ordinance will proceed; as appropriate, depending upon completion of the land use plan. There is no schedule of this activity, as yet.' INTERGOVERNMENTAL LONG-RANGE PLANNING COUNCIL No progress has been made, though discussions are continuing with the Carrboro and the Chapel Hill Planning Departments. Enclosure 4 ~Fr�sr�a�P.�'rrrN.usrey LA,uo t��c� � i 19�cvsiG ill.G, S',� �Fca�uEy-iTrc�yj u,3r - --L--pr1 f�.3r. - tihv.1 --Fiu9� l.�•v� c,C.�l�.qv Ilfl/TJA7�E Jc'E✓f�/ON OF 4"7;;VC7- P.�ocir�tGyv� ^^—l�Et/l�rdtlOF c�tlT-r� 7-G�ilr/lJ�a �fZLY'�i�ifiL� Z v l tA.- Cwc,/tr L .or/7b Q�+►Xo<l.Yf71, ��.�,�� iQifl� fi!/LL,S,SJ+2otcC�5' TGYtINSf/iO.S��/I.�'I•f!G 7V,E C'f�,g ez,G 6 p ..• o,- Cacr.�ry Cir�crcrrR rz2c�3cic f "-9.EZrtlG L\ „, • = �:� I J AP S ATEMENT ON EXTRATERRITORIAL PLANNING JURISDICTION BY ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Because of recent developments, it is important that the Orange County Board of Commissioners issue this brief history and statement of its position on extraterrito ial planning jurisdiction for Chapel Hill . Chapel Hill 's request for a 3-mile extension was carefully reviewed by the County Commissioners, the Orange County Planning Board and Staff, the Chapel Hill Tow ship Advisory Council , and the public in public hearing. The Commissioners adopted a resolution on October 24, 1918 to transfer to Chapel Hill 's jurisdiction that portion of the requested land classified "Transition” on the County's Land Classification Map. The decision was based on sound con- siderations including annexation projections , practicality of extending urban- type services (tie area is bordered on the north by a drainage divide), pending commercial re-zo ing requests, protection of mobile home dwellers, citizens' basic right of p litical recourse (the areas lie outside town voting district) , recognition of the County's planning responsibilities and confidence in its planning ability, and the County's hope for initiating a coordinated county/town planning effort for the areas of concern. The proposed transfer was accompanied by a request for a meeting as soon as possible with the Chapel Hill Town Council to explain this reasoning, to discuss implementation of the transfer,. and to initiate a joint planning effort with Chapel Hill to identify the concerns and to devise suitable mechanisms for addressing those needs. This invitation was not accepted, and the Commissioners received no res 7nse to the transfer proposal . At its meeting on December 4, the Board of Commiss oners once again officially requested such a joint meeting to no avail . On January 30, without prior consultation, the Mayor of Chapel Hill presented a th e-part proposal to the Chapel Hill Town Council : 1) approval of a Southern By-R ss, 2) withdrawal from the I-40 lawsuit, and 3) a request to the General Ass mbly to increase the Town' s planning ;jurisdiction beyond that agreed to by the County. After linking the planning extension to the two highway matters, the Ma or suggested that the Department of Transportation's important leverage in the General Assembly could help get this additional planning jurisdictioi for the Town. The Commis ioners agreed, on short notice, to a late afternoon meeting with u 6th. The meeting produced a sub-committee with two the Town Counci� on February ; members from each Board and a very general assignment to discuss these issues and bring reports nd recommendations back to the Boards. However, C. apel Hill 's Council has scheduled a February 19th meeting to make a decision abou requesting the planning extension from the General Assembly. It has been sugges ed by several members of the Town Council that while the sub- committee d'ISCU sons are going on, the Town could also request the legislation, as added insura ce, and that such an act should not be interpreted as antagonistic. Regardless of t e intent, the practical result of such an action would be the same it would place the Town and the County in adverse positions. If there i any doubt whether the 'Board of Commissioners would oppose such legislation, le all doubt be removed now. The Orange County Commissioners are unanimously opposed to the North Carolina General Assembly overriding a carefully considered planning decision made by this Board under the authority given to it, and to the County Board of Commissioners throughout the State, by the General Assembly in 1971 G. S. 160A 360) . We believe that state legislators will - - r Irequest would change the character of this understand this position. Such a req est that it should matter from a punning issue to a political issue. To sugg ause it. could be withdrawn at any time is unrealistic from pose.. no problem t of view. We wou het os iti on e County's poi ld feel a need to activate our opp the .. immediately. The County e-emphasizes its desire to cooperate with Chapel Hill in jointly planning hese areas. Our delegates to the new sub-committee have � y reiterated this d sire and have offered specific suggestions for getting it underway. A. requlst to the General Assembly would indicate the Town's desire rent direction and could seriously endanger such joint planning to move i n a d�ff r _ efforts. It coul also impede progress in the Sbuthern By-pass issue with those residents who wou d be dually affected. And it would certainly tend to increase the urban-rural t n,. across our County. The Board of Commissioners recognizes the prerogative of the Town Council to choose such a c urse, and states its position clearly at this time in an effort to communic to the seriousness of this matter and to avoid misunderstanding. We also address th s statement to the citizens of Orange County in response to the many concerns whit have been expressed to us. Unanimously a opted by the Orange County Board- of Commissioners this the 15th day of Februa y, 1979. This is to certify that the above is a true and correct copy of so much of the minutes of the Orange County Board of Commissioners' meeting on February 15, 1979. ;} t Clerk to ad Orange County Boa d of Commissioners