Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-12-1999 - 4i 1 ORANGE COUNTY. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION ITEM: ABSTRAt~ Meeting .Date: October 12, 1999 Action Agenda Item No. -- SUBJECT: Update on Mebane/Orange County Planning Coordination DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING:.- (YIN) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig N. Benedict, ext. 2592 Summary (i) See attached (ii) .TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732,8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501. Durham 688-7331 Mebane (336)227-2031 PURPOSE: To receive report on progress of discussions with Mebane regarding joint planning and annexation issues. BACKGROUND: Recent annexations by Mebane has raised. concerns by adjacent unincorporated communities such as Hebron that there is need for more communication and coordination concerning land use/zoning decisions. The Hebron community -began an incorporation process to protecf their ifestyle but rule changes at the. state level made the prospect difficult. The goal of interlocal cooperation could be achieved through joint planning so administrative staff have begun a dialogue on the various elements of planning. The meeting dates are noted on the attachment. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time. RECOMMENDATION(S):. To receive as a report and suggest priorities in the elements of joint planning. o. SUMMARY CITY OF MEBANE/ORANGE COUNTY Intergovernmental Coordination Issues Orange County administration has begun a dialogue with the City of Mebane concerning issues of mutual interest. There have been a few meetings as noted below in Section I. 3 At this point planning staffs are developing a comprehensive hst of~oint planning .issues and a draft of a prioritization schedule to outline a sequence of future events.. The ideas listed under Section II 'Elements of Joint Planning' have been generated by Craig Benedict, Planning Director and will serve as a basis of firture discussion but aze not intended to be on all-inclusive list at this juncture. ..Sections III and N note the creation of a state legislatively approved Blue Ribbon Growth Management commission as proposed by Senator Howazd Lee with some inclusion of Rep. Joe Haclaiey's bill. Craig Benedict has offered his experience in growth management systems to assist in the reseazch and findings of the commission. He has offered his name through the North Cazolina Association of County and Mr. Aycock, Executive Director after discussion with the County Manager: The scenazio posed in Section IV could help in issues similaz to the IViebane/Hillsborough .annexation/incorporation situation. CITY OF MEBANE/ORANGE COUNTY Intergovernmental Coordination Issues ~t ~ 4f I. Correspondence and meetings A. Draft "Resolution of Agreement Regazding Satellite Annexations" (not acted upon) ` B. Draft "Resolution of Intent to Pursue Elements of Joint Planning" (not acted upon) C. 4/19/99... Orange County Letter to Mebane D. 4/20/99... Mebane Letter to Orange County E. 4/21/99... John Link to BOCC re: Mebane Meetings F. 4!30/99; 4/29/99.... Orange County Letter to Mebane/Hebron Area G. 6/14/99... "Resolution of Agreement Regazding Satellite Annexations" (revised by Mebane) H. 7/20/99.... Manager's and Planning Director's meeting to discuss framework of future cooperative planning (no attachment) I. 8/4/99... Planning Director's meeting regazding subdivision building information .exchange (no attachment) J. 8./18/99... Planning Director's meeting to discuss j oint planning prioritization system (no attachment) K. 9/1/99.... Planning Director's meeting to discuss Annexation/Urban Growth Boundaries and Water and Sewer Areas (no attachment). 5/28/99... Manager Memo re: "Mebane Resolutions on Joint Planning" II. Elements of Joint Planning to be Pursued A. Annexation 1. Satellite annexations by the City would not be effectuated unless there was an approval by the County or a joint planning agreement between the parties was in effect regarding this issue. 2. Contiguous annexations by thecity within the County portion of the ETJ would. include a notice provision and a Finding of land use compatibility.. .pursuant to a jointly adopted land use plan. B. Water and Sewer Service Plans 1. The collaboration of both parties on water and sewer infrastructure plans would provide a basis of the density and intensity of future land use plans. 2. The Joint Planning Agreement (JPA) would address the projected boundaries of the service azea, the schematic location of existing-and proposed utility lines and a capital improvement program funding and schedule. C. Economic Development Programs 1. An economic development district is noted on the County land use plan within the four quadrants of the intersection of Buckhorn Road and I-85/I- 40. The JPA could address the following issues: a. .Economic Development District Design Guidelines b. Compatibility of residential and non-residential uses. and. rural transition azeas c. Joint mazketing of the azea d. Economic Development Incentives D. Transportation Planning 1. Transportation plans and initiatives in the City-County area aze-part of a regional program of traffic control and enhancement. 2. The JPA would address the following issues: a. .Regional representation on transportation committees on the I85/I40 corridor b. Transportation nodes for Park and Ride lots c. Appropriate location of high traffic generation uses d. State road planning and interconnectivity in the subregion E. Natural Resource Preservation 1. Natural resources aze intrinsic to the environment that supports the high .quality of living standards expected in the City and County. 2. .The JPA would address: a. Watershed preservation b. Conservation Areas F. Public Services 1. The provision of public services can be greatly impacted by growth and development.. Sharing information, projecting needs, and gauging the impacts upon services will assist in providing cost and efficient and timely services by both City and County governments to residents and businesses. a. Schools b. Police, Fire and EMS c. Pazks and Recreation 2 of 4 G. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) 1. The TDR concept is employed to shift residential density or non- residential intensity away from azeas with environmental constraints or .where rural character preservation is sought to TDR receiving azeas where adequate infrastructure is available to land relatively. unconstrained by natural resources. 2. The 'Buckhorn' Economic Development District (EDD) may be an appropriate azea to act as a TDR receiving area and further planning should be considered towazds an implementation program. H. Development Process Coordination • 1. A flow chart of development processing including generalized review and action tixneframes and what types of projects would undergo what level of review should be developed. 2. Afterwhich a process implementation program would be approved. A joint development review team may be considered. I. JPA and Amendment Implementafion Timeframe 1. The Resolution of Intent and its issue sections may not be approved in one. comprehensive JPA, although both parties will pursue the concept in good. faith. 2. The basic. JPA should be approved within 90 days of the last signature to the Resolution of Intent. Certain specific JPA aspects should be approved within 180 days of the last signature. 3. A process of JPA amendments will also be included in the JPA. III. Blue Ribbon Growth Management/Smart Growth Commission The Blue Ribbon Growth Management/Smart Growth Commission strengthens the ability of county governments to coordinate and develop growth plans to manage growth in a region in a comprehensive manner. A. Promote efficient infrastructure provision; B. Preserve natural and cultural resources; C. Foster economic development; D. Ensure compatible land-use patterns; E. Develop walkable communities; and F. Enhance the quality of life for the citizens of North Carolina. 3 of 4 IV. Impact of Potential NC Growth Management Legislation on County-Municipal Jurisdiction Planning The intent of the study commission and the recommendations forthcoming is to create a planning framework that addresses regional cooperation and land use consistency between various jurisdictions. Environment and transportation issues aze primary regional effects. Annexation and comprehensive land use compatibility affect the boundaries between local governments. Under some hypothetical legislation, a pattern of future land use would be set by the county with the input. from neazby municipalities. These new ETJ areas would be jointly planned and be the 'pool' of future annexations into unincorporated azeas of the county... Even after annexation the previous land use pattern would be the dominant pattern until an amendment, if any, was requested showing a proposed change that met a series of compatibility requirements. ,Growth management and'smazt growth initiatives focus a great amount of review on regional issues as well as the urban growth boundaries (i.e. county-city interface). Legislation that promotes cooperative planning can become`a major facilitator to enhanced communication between local governments and the corresponding planned progress goal of the area. RESOLUTION OF AGREEMENT REGARDING SATELLITE ANNEXATIONS The Resolution of Agreement is entered into the day of , 1999, by and between the City of Mebane (City) and Orange County (County). WHEREAS, The City of Mebane is located .primarily within Alamance County but does have the eastern portion of its jurisdiction and extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETA within Orange County; and WHEREAS, The City of Mebane and Orange County herein acknowledge that joint planning and communication are important facets of quality development and effective government; and WHEREAS,. Satellite annexations within Orange County by the City of Mebane are a concern of the Board of County Commissioners and their residents; and- WHEREAS, The passage of this resolution is in the best interests of the citizens of the City and County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the aforementioned parties do agree to the following element of joint planning and interest. Section 1. Satellite Annexation Satellite annexations by the City will not be effectuated unless there is written approval by Orange County. Process Section 2. A resolution from the City regazdinga satellite annexation request will be forwazded to the County for action by the County Commissioners within 60 days. An.approval or denial will be in,the form of a County resolution and a certified copy. will be sent to the City within S days of C ounty :action. Section 3. Effective Date The effective date of this Resolution of Agreement shall be the date whereby both signatures aze finally affixed.. . Attested to by the .undersigned: Alice M. Gordon, Chair Orange County Boazd of Commissioners Glendel Stephenson, Mayor City of Mebane C:\windows\temp\res5-14b.doc .Page 1 of 1 RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO PURSUE ELEMENTS OF JOINT PLANNING WHEREAS, Planning and development that occurs within Orange County has an effect on various public services; and WHEREAS, The City of Mebane and Orange County herein acknowledge that joint planning-and communication are important facets of quality development and effective government; and WHEREAS, Joint planning and analysis are becoming increasingly important in Orange County because -the impacts of growth can negatively affect the quality of life for residents; and - WHEREAS, This resolution of intent is a prerequisite document to a joint planning agreement and sets forth our mutual effort to understand and address each other's interests and challenges in a constructive and coherent process; and WHEREAS, The City Manager and County Manager and their respective Planning Directors are instructed to work towards developing an agreement on which elements would be incorporated in a future Joint Planning Agreement. The timeframe suggested herein to identify specific element topics. is 90 days. WHEREAS, The passage of this resolution is in the best interests of the citizens of the City and County..- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the aforementioned parties do attest to, in good faith, the following elements of joint planning, cooperation and interest which may include the following: G:\CRAIG\RESS-14.DOC Page l of 2 ~2• Various Elements 1. Contiguous/Satellite Annexations 2. Water and Sewer Service Plans 3. Economic Development 4. Transportation ~'lanning 5. Natural Resource Preservation 6. Public Services 7. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) 8. Development Process Coordination 9. Cooperative Planning Agreement (CPA) and (CPA) Amendment, Implementation . a). Cooperative Planning Area (CPA) b). Transition Areas c). Non-urban 10. Land Use Planning a). Rural Character Preservation b). Impact Fee Participation c). Data Sharing; (Socio- Economic, Construction etc.) Effective Date The effective date of this Resolution of Intent shall be the date whereby. both signatures are finally affixed. Attested to by the undersigned: Alice M. Gordon, Chair Glendel Stephenson, Mayor Orange County Board of.Commissioners City of.Mebane G:\CRAIG\RESS-14.DOC Page 2 of 2 c ~, ~~ April 1999 Mayor Glendel Stephenson City Manager Robert Wilson RE: Annexation/Incorporation Issues Dear Mayor Stephenson: Dear Robert Wilson: We have common interests; to promote the orderly development of lands while preserving those with historical or environmental character. The Hebron incorporation request has brought to light the many sensitive issues concerning annexation and incorporation. We believe the issues surrounding growth and annexation into unincorporated areas canbe resolved.throughfoint planning. A joint planning agreement would foster enhanced cooperation, coordination and analysis regarding the annexation reserve areas and their transition into the jurisdiction of a town. Land use compatibility and the impact of growth on public service provisionand facilities is of paramount importance because it literally and figuratively taxes the quality of life of county and town residents. We have noted below some options that can address the needs of town, county and citizens and lead to quality comprehensive planning, , TOWN/COUNTY JOINT PLANNING OF ...ANNEXATION AREAS 1. A Joint Planning Agreement is signed between the town and county for a specific planning area where annexation is anticipated. A. Urban Transition Area 1. Higher Density Residential 2. Non-Residential Primary B. Rural Transition Area 1. Lower..Density Residential 2-5 du/ac 2. Community Scale Non-Residential Annex.doc e 2. .Transition Area can be extended if one of two scenarios occur: A. Town accepts land use plan of county until town develops a land use plan B. Town has developed a land use plan within the Transition Area with public hearing process to permit input from the county and affected citizens/businesses. 3. Voluntary Annexations A. Within ETJ - Zoning that is in effect or requested to be consistent with the land use plan. B. Outside ETJ -Zoning must be consistent with land use plan of county for a period of two yeazs at which time a land use plan developed through a joint planning agreement wold go into effect for the area between the town limits and an azea 1000' around the voluntary annexation. 4. Involuntary Annexations Must be within ETJ and in accordance: with an agreed upon joint landuse plan. 5. State Legislative Action Additional rules would be promulgated concerning annexation that would be directed to promote orderly and consistent growth patterns with that of the county. 6. Town boundary is temporarily fixed. Let's continue our discussions and come to a resolution about joint planning so we can notify interested parties of our jointly shazed goals and the direction to achieve said goals. The State Legislature may assist us in come manner. We welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues and begin a process that will augment communication and bolster cooperation. We are anxious to meet, so please .contact our offices for a meeting at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Alice Gordon, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners :John M. Link, Jr., Orange County Manager Annex.doc • + ~ ~ _ ~ RdwtLWiboa ~~ ~~ ~,y~~ ~ ~7.~b jj ~.~aya.0~~ ~'~ J~ekh Woetow Cfl~odtl8mphdas 7iaG~lAeear Bligar c 106 E. Washington Street rraa~ aaa~n,a~.r~.r.. Mebane, N.C. 29301 °i~ 'n0~' (419) 563.5901 wma Dn~r sob Hnpm~e , nnn xsy R~rfan ~ Pmb Aprd 20,1 ._..:..> iD j -- --...f! ~: Mrs. Alice M. Gordon, Chair. ~ ~ ! it ~ ;'. Or~age County Commissioners E : ; P. O. Box 8181 'i:~' 200 South Cameron Street Hdlsborough, North Carolina 27278 DISTRIBUTED Dear Mrs. Gordon: .. ~ dace ~_ .Reference is to your letter of Apra 19,1999 regarding the desirability of joint planning _ . ~~ ~~/,~~ discussions, and possible written agreement, .between the Crty oflViebane and Orange ~ °~ County. -You refer directly to the Hebmn community incorporation request that has apparently initiated your letter and. suggestions. We have had an opporhmity to read Senate Bill DRSA591-LB125(3.23) sponsored by Senator Kmnaird that would restrict the City of Mebane from, any annexation action in Cheeks Tovv~iship of Orange County for a period of five years (until June 30, 2004), and ties the act directly to "a joint planning agreement with Orange County :. ", to be evidenced by adoption of ordinances covering such an agreement.. As has been expressed to-you, John Link and Senator ' Kinnaird, the City of Mebane would not react favorably to such legislation: we feel such action would be virtually an insult to the City and certainly would not encourage a quickened.improvement in our workmg/conversational relationship. A quick final- word about the proposed legislation and then I will speak to the possibility of a joint planning activity. Since the action of the Mebane City Council to annex two areas of Orange Countythrough satellite annexation-seems to have been the catalyst for this legislation, we would propose that Mebane will not enter into any additional satellite . annexations affecting Orange County without the written consent of the Orange County Commissioners.. I believe the Coun+cd will approve this action; this would be much better for our future relationship than some type of legislative action "aimed at" the. City of Mebane. Let's not destroy the relationship that has already begun to improve through the several discussions we have enjoyed over the .past months. About joint planning: the City of Mebane would welcome any opportunity to begin discussions .about some agreements with Orange County ... as soon as we can arrange mutuaIly satisfactory dates: Would you lice to begin those discussions prior to .budget. .. Planning? Probably not. I suspect both bodies w~l be involved with budgeting from very soonwell-.into June.. However, perhaps we can set an initial meeting to get our thoughts in order prior to our budget studies, and then continue them a$er our budgets are completed and inplace.. I would 'invite you to have John Link and Robert Wilson work . out that date.. From statements ogered by John in out conversation on Apn119m, the indication is that Putting. together a joint Planning agreement would take some time and perhaps several meetings. It is my personal opinion that legislative actiondescribed-above wdl be ' counterproductive to the successful initiation and successful delivery of a joint planning . agreement that both Orange ,County and the City of Mebane can be proud of and feel good about. Your points. were well made and understood concerning the problems faced by any county when an adjoining city. took action contrary to the county Comprehensive Land Plan. We respect your position... We sincerely ask that you respect our position, and. that you consider the potential adverse effects should the above legislative action become law as we move Orange County and the City of Mebane into a more harmonious relationship. I thank you for the two most recent meetings we have enjoyed together. I trust we wdl move very quickly to expand our conversations to include the matters of this letter. Thank you for your courtesies as you presented your thoughts. We look forward to your early response. Cordially, Glendel Stephenson Mayor Cc: Administration and Counc~ -City of Mebane Senator Ellie Kinnaird _ _ . .MEMORANDUM ORANGE COUNTY FiILLSBOROU(~H NORTH CAROLINA l~rtalG~/Fcd 174.8 TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners FROMs John M. Link, Jr., County Manager DATE: Apri121, 1999.. . REt Report on Meeting with Mebane Officials I wanted to provide a brief report on the meeting that Chair Gordon and I had with the Mayor, Manager and two Councilmen of a City of Mebane, on Monday, Apri119. The representatives of Mebane expressed co and.anger about the prospect of a Legislative Moratorium on Annexation by a within Orange .The source of :their concern focused -the' ing "single "from the o ~ Orange ' . ~ .. County, They belie th y sues o - a~. azound the , . ~ . area subject to~.ann Q ~, ,~ `ugh and Durham..In t1 _ ,,,.,+„~;..:.,.... . Chair Gordo :~ ~ ~ - ~' v tier approved - by the B~OCC a ~" ~ ~ "" "" Mebane. 'J The Chair also. ~ . 'ssi~oners with greater freq ~ _ e citizens felt that the BOCC is ~ ~"' ~"""" - urther, the . point was made that satellite annexations, such as the -one close to Hebron, were most aggravating to citizens living in the affected .area since the existing land use plan was changed by government officials for whom they could not vote. ~ . As discussion proceeded, there were expressions by all of us indicating a deeper understanding of the issues faced by the other party. Mebane officials indicated a willingness to pursue the concept of joint planning with Orange. County.. With regard to a moratorium, Mebane officials agreed to look at the proposed legislation; and there were expressions made that a moratorium only on satellite annexations and only until joint Planning was in place may be more acceptable than their understanding of the present drafted legislation. - : Discussion was concluded with the agreement that Mebane would respond to the County letter within a week. AREA CODE (919) .732-8181 • 968-4501 • 688-7331 •227-2031 • FAX (919) 6443004 c~ Orange County Commissioners P. O. Box 8181 ntP o~ 200 S Cameron Street you ® ' Hillsborough; NC 27278 aa° ~°4.~ Alice M. Gordon, Chair '~' •• Stephen H. HalkiotEs, Vice Chair 17 ~a o 52 Margaret W. Brown Moses Care}', Jr. *" Barry Jacobs ~$oerb ~aco``,~e MEMORANDUM TO: Interested Citizens FROM:.. Alice M. Gordon, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners SUBJECT: Joint Planning with Mebane DATE: April 30, 1999 The attached letter to Lynne Holtkamp outlines the steps that . Orange County is taking with .respect to joint planning with the City of Mebane.. An identical letter was sent to James Randy Kinley, who also spoke at a recent County Commissioners meeting about a proposal for incorporation of .Hebron and related land use considerations. We are sending you a copy of this letter because we are aware of your interest concerning land use issues In your area. If you would like more information on this general topic or you know anyone else who would like to receive information, please contact Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk to the County Commissioners at 732-8181, ext. 2130. You Count In Orange County AREA CODE (919). 732-8181: 968-4501: 688-7331: 227-2031: FAX (919) 644-3004 Ext. 2130 2: Orange County Commissioners P.O. Box 8181 200 S. Cameron Street Hillsborough, N. ~ 27278 AUce 11~ Gordon, Qta1r Stephen fL Haltdotit, Vice Chao Mat~aret W. Brown Masses Carey, Jr. Barry Jaco4r Apri129, 1999 Ms. Lynne Holtkamp ' 2004 Ben Wilson Road ~ . Mebane, NC 27302 Dear Ms. Holtkamp: Knowing of your concerns as expressed in the past regarding a satellite annexation by Mebane in the vicinity of the Hebron Community, the Commissioners wanted you to be aware of productive outcomes. in recent discussions with the City of Mebane. Based on these discussions, the City of Mebane and Orange County are. in the process of committing to a joint Resolution of Intent to Pursue Joint Planning to be signed within the next thirty days. This resolution would articulate principles of joint planning to be followed by both jurisdictions. A point of agreement that we believe is of great interest to you is the stated intent by the City of Mebane that it does not plan to enter into any additional satellite annexations affecting Orange County without written consent of the Orange County Commissioners. Other elements that could be included in the joint planning process are: • a process for contiguous annexations, to be discussed • collaboration on water and sewer extension plans • collaboration on efforts within the Economic Development District (EDD) in the I-85/I-40 Buclchorn area • protection of natural resources including watershed preservation • coordination of transportation initiatives, particularly related to the I-40/I-85 Corridor • shared information as to the impacts of development is areas of mutual interest, to include impacts of service requirements; i.e. fire, law. enforcement, schools, recreation, and so forth. You Count In Orange County .lREA CODE (919) 73Z-8181: 968-4501: 688-7331: Z27-1031: FAX (9I9) 6~1~300~ _ Ext 2130 . Lynne Holtkamp Agri129,1999 Page 2 We are encouraged by the discussions with Mebane officials and believe that it is in our mutual interest to pursue this course of action. We appreciate your expression of concern and we trust that this proposal will help us all plan for the future in a collaborative and productive manner. Thank you foryour continued interest in this matter. Sincerely, l~ ~~ Alice M. Gordon Chair - Sep 23 99 03:31p Buck .Treduta~ [919! fi44-OZ4fi p. 18 • ~~ • 1S Qrange Co~cnty Comarnissinners . P. 0. Box 8.i8Y _,,.,,,,~,,_ 200 S Carnerori Street _ l~ittsborough, NC 2?~?8 v€~ c~ _ Apa129.1999 ~ w. ~.,~. ~Naa caua h. ~/~ TlLe Hot~ora6le ~31r~dd Stepheason , G~ty of Mebano '~""' 206 E Wasbhtgtoo strac ~ . Mcbaae. NC 27302 • Dear Mayor. 3tephcnson:. ' '~~ aPP~~•Y'~ ~ ~ 1~ ~ to the desirab~ity of joint plannfag'bettveea the . Cit3- of MebaAC a~ Orange County. ,, . Rfc agree with your perspective that ~ sucasaful oubconle for joint P8 ro4dsrzs our mutual • ~egiost tQ uad cad AtLdre~e cash other's iutensgts and ehaltenges hi tl CODSt~CCVC; coiusive process. Consistpat with that perspcetiv~, we ~ advisiag tl~ Orango County legislative delegation that the Ocaage Ctruntar Board of Catamiasioners aroulti >!elly request that any local lcgialntion placing a marat~im on sa>xttatian by Mebane iato Orange Cotmry be withdrawn. ]tathec, we would ptapose that ac mutually puisne the adapti~on of a joint planaittg 'qVe cue very appreciative of yoWr w~liagaess to ptusue joie glanriiag ant can stata tight now that we would liloe Oo accept the proposal in your Apa~ 20 Iesnec the Mebone w~7I cot cater into any additiotwl satellita aanexatia~ns ~ Ora~tge Couaty witho~ tbw wtittert consent of the age County Cotataissioaccs. You mdicaad that it was yattz belief that your CotmcB would approve th4s action. atad we boliCVe such an actiaao would be muwnlly besaeficial. Wa world I0ro to propose that the n~ soepa is Writ joint P>~n8 ~aistzat with our . rccmt comrspoadence shoald be as #oIIaws; 1. That the Mayor and Cottdacil of t#~ City of Mobaae and the Osage Cogaty Board of Ccaastlsalaaera would sign a R of Itltent m Pucsue Joist Planwrsg that would arttcuiare the of j~ PAS bo be followed by bout ju>zsdicdoxtt. (a) Aa ezataplcs, ih~8 ttsolutan crould include rite fol~vmg • a P far satralide anme~atiosss ss iadica>xd shove.: _ • a process foot cC-ntigrtous atu>Cxations, 6v l7e diaetisscd; You Coau:t Ia: Qeutegs Co~- AR1sA CODE (919) ?3Z-6181: 968-~S01: 66&7331: ~r,2431: FA7C (939) 6~300~4 ~ arse • Sep 23 99 03: 31 p Buck -Tredway [9191 644-0246 p. 19 19 • collal~ratiott on wabet' grid scwet exbGnsiOn pleas: • collaboration oa efforts within the Economic Devdogtnent Distact (EDD) is she T 85/h40 $uckhorn area; • protxtiozE of aasural resomtces incls~ding watershed prescrvati~; • coatdination of aansportattoautitiatives, particularly related to cha Y-4q~-85 Corridor, • • s4a~cd infocmati0n as m the impacts of dcvelop~t is at~eas of mutual interest. to inrlnde impacta erg service requucments: i.e. £:xie. law cnfa~meat; schools, era, and so fouRh. ` These elements excrainly ate oIIt int~eaded tt: bs sn iaclu~sive tilt and wo would eaco:aagn . .. your:uggestiansfat additioAat elemi~ats m be included • (b) we would an~esc asking our respective maasgera w 4vtlaborun to deve~pp a l Resolttiioa of latent to Ptusne Jo;utt Planning that outlines ttie elements- of joint plmmaiag to be pvxsued~ sad that botk boards off dally approve the ~solutzovt within .the naa 30 • daya. 2 That afbar the resolution is sigaod. the taspxtivo managers and staffs a-ou]d develop a specific timetable and mett>odOlogy taaddress tine in a aystermatic manner. ~c are looking forward m working widx Mebane 4II joint placating. 'We sincemly believe the • process will strengthen our workitlg relationship in addressing mallets itapartsat'LO tntr citizens. • si~erely, . ~ ~ ' ~~ ._ Alice M. Gordon Atts,~meuts: Leer fiaan c3yauc Gdrtioa m Mcbaae Mayor Stephenson anted 4119199 Ltxxr i~am lvset~ane l+tiayot stephcflsos- to cordon gaud a1~0199 • ' cc: 1Vlcbaae Town Counc~ Or~tge County Commissianas senator EIeaaar Kiaaaird Senabor~oasr~Lx Rcpresentatfve Jtx idacYlley Rvc'Yezia lnsho 3o1~n Limon.~k~.~,~~~D~rSa'~Sq'e_+C~o'a-n^t~y. M `Wl~ •\ iYT/a~ L-i~VYiN. Wry N% l••~ ~S~ ,~,`, ~> RESOLUTION OF AGREEMENT REGARDING SATELLITE ANNEXATIONS The Resolution of Agreement is entered into the 14,, day of '~„~ , 1999, by and between the City of Mebane (City) and Orange County (County). WHEREAS, the City of Mebane is located primarily within Alamance County but does have the eastern portion of its jurisdiction and extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETA within Orange County; and . . WHEREAS, the City of Mebane and Orange County herein acknowledge that joint. planning .and communication- aze .important .facets of equality. development and effective government; and WI~REAS, satellite annexations within Orange County by the .City of Mebane are a concern of the Board of County Commissioners and their residents; and WHEREAS, the passage ofthis resolution is in the best interests of the citizens of the City and County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the aforementioned parties do ' agree to the following element of joint planning and interest. Section L Satellite Annexation. The General Assembly of North Carolina has determined that . under certain .narrowly .defined: circumstances; .cities. in North Carolina may exercise the power of annexation as to satellite azeas not located contiguous... to a City's primary corporate limits. Nothing contained herein shall be construed or interpreted to limit . ~ the ability of the .City of Mebane to exercise these powers granted to ..cities by the.. Legislature.. Recognizing, that Orange County currently exercises zoning control throughout the County in areas not .regulated by cities; the City of Mebane acknowledges that legitimate interests of Orange County require that the County have . ~ an input in the decision making process when Mebane considers satellite annexations withinOrange County. Section 2. Process Upon receipt of a request for satellite annexation; the- City will forwazd such request to the County prior to taking any .action on said request. The City will not take further action on said request. until the County has had an opportunity. to review the- proposed . ~ ~ satellite. annexation and forward its. comments with respect to same to the City. If no comments are received. within sixty (60) days, the City may proceed without further consulting with the County. ~. - The City will take the- comments of the. County into consideration when exercising its legislative functions with respect to a request for satellite annexation. -Section 3. Effective Date The effective date of. this Resolution of Agreement shall be the date whereby both signatures are finally affixed and it shall remain in full force and effect until modified or terminated by either party. Attested to by the undersigned: .~f Alice M. Gordon, Chair G endel Stephens ,Mayor Orange County Board of Commissioners City of Mebane Sep Z3 99 03:32p Huak•Tredway ORANGFE COUNTY R rr•Y"aBOROVGEi NORTH CJ4RQ1.]NA [9191 644-D246 .~ vta~ ycv~;~ (9~' o- MEMQYtAIYDCJ'M 'I'0: Oran-ge County. Board of Commissioners. FROM:- John Link, County Manager DATE: May 28,1999 RE: Periodic Updates do Significant Topics I have several updates for you as sutnm~arized below and in the enclosed attachments: 1. Mebane Resolutions on Juint_P~a~ng esolution ' p. zz 22 1lli~d fy6.8 I am collaborating directly with Robert Wilson, City Mer of Mebane, onre~~'tions for joint planning. We are giving first. pnonty #o a Reso 'on of~~greement o ~~elhte Annexatao~~ governing bodies would ...f~{ M' r.~ ~:.p .rw~ hopefully agree to before the ~` ' brew ~,~ ' ` ~-~,~;r. ~.1~~.." w t la. Robert is trying to ~ t ~ , f MLfro ~..e -r-T.v'.~.`.'1°i~- ~ ^ ~*~~-'~.~~.• .r • riyY - get this on lus Cocmcil's agendse~ ~ ; ~.:r. _^ : ~,r:.~-; ~~.~~~~ •ww..:; ~' ~ w T i~~rw,~-fi A•SMa~1.T~,.~.+-+.",.1.-~±wJ?r~~y~~`~i; ~..•rY-k. I have also ,discussed the othe~~r ~t ~~~7aafi't) ~, ~r( ~ ~ ~ with Robert. He .believes. and I agree, that tbus~ ~~~ ~~ ' ~':., ~~a ~ .~, ~ planning directors .. : rya- hh'~ `'` '~-"~''• "`'~ ~""~ `~ ~' ~ ~ the next few weeks, I during the course of the ~`~' ~~~ wd~y;.",'` k ~n~o~kk~~yyti ~ ,~~CC•~ yr~;~- :f ~.. ~~ ~'h.7 .zY~iAAY ~. ~. f ;~! ~ra.vrt~ ~.,~ :~+61~ ~,(..xa •+. '1!""R. believe that would be a si ~~}.r, : _ "~ ~^ ~~ ~~ .. , , '~ ~~~~z ..~~• M: , , ay.- .~T~ ,,. "atie'.t:, f '``T.`..Cr,%.Ii~e;~,; Y _ '. ~~ :~i ~ ec ~at.~TG, ' .+:~ •' ,Y X.,i*~aS~'.so,~F.o _,r ,~ca_ ,a,r'a~*"~f~ ,-y'r~t ,~ ;~~+'ar .. W. K'L ~'....+ e' %rw'wr.n+~f~M .fa~Y.C L~D~ ~~~_rN.~~~YK~..~...r 2. Solid Waste Financine Att~'i~at~es '"' The Solid Waste Alternative Financing Committee met a number of times earlier this fiscal year to consider options to generate additional revenue to support the.new facilities attd programs that will be necessary to meet our solid waste reduction goals. One idea that has been suggested is a set of sCrvicc districw iii which ad valoxem taxes could be levied at different rates as necessary to support the specific level of solid waste services that might be provided in those individual districts. "Fhe materials at Attachment. ~ were provided to the Chapel Hill Tawn Council as an analysis- of the feasibility of solid waste service districts.. We are passingthis-along now, as it seems that with the Cuun~y's pendi~lg assumption of solid waste management responsibility, it is unlikely that the Alternative Financing Committee will meet again and likely that the Board of Commissioners will make the ultimate decisions on solid waste financing mechanisms. AREA CODE (919)' 732$181 • 968-4501 •888-7331 • 227.2031 • FAX {919) 644-3004 .. C.i MM