|
TO: |
Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager |
|
FROM: |
J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director Gene Poveromo, Development Coordinator |
|
SUBJECT: |
Public Hearing: Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment – Changes to Planning Board Composition, Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Membership |
|
DATE: |
June 18, 2007 |
Tonight’s Public Hearing is for the Council to receive comments on a possible Land Use Management Ordinance text amendment to change the composition of the Planning Board, to reduce the Board’s extraterritorial planning jurisdiction (ETJ) membership from two to one ETJ representative.
Chapel Hill has an Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction (ETJ) and a Joint Planning Transition District (JPA). Both of these jurisdictional areas, located in Orange County and outside the Chapel Hill corporate limits, are covered by Chapel Hill zoning and planning regulations.
The Land Use Management Ordinance dictates the composition of the Chapel Hill Planning Board. The Planning Board is composed of ten (10) members:
As Chapel Hill has grown, the extraterritorial jurisdiction has decreased in size. Because the area of extraterritorial jurisdiction is shrinking, it has become more difficult to find potential Planning Board members in the area.
On May 7, 2007, the Council delayed consideration of appointments to the Planning Board, and requested that a process to change the ETJ membership of the Planning Board be initiated. The Planning Board has had a vacant extraterritorial planning jurisdiction position for the past year. The County has in the past had difficulty filling the vacant board position.
The Council requested that this change to the Land Use Management Ordinance regarding composition of the Planning Board be made effective in time for new Board appointments in June.
We learned in early June that the County Commissioners made an appointment to the vacant ETJ member position. We have notified the recent appointee of the proposed changes to the composition of the Board. Our orientation of new Planning Board members typically occurs in July. At the orientation session, new members take the oath of office and receive introductory information. Once sworn in, new members are able to take a seat at the table and participate as full members of the Board.
Under the provisions of North Carolina General Statute Sec. 160A-362, the Town is obligated to provide representation for the extraterritorial planning area on its Planning Board and Board of Adjustment that is “proportional” . . “based on population.” Attachment 1 is a copy of the Statute.
We have done an analysis of the population statistics for the Town and the extraterritorial planning jurisdiction, and have determined that the proposed change is warranted. As part of our review, we considered the estimated population of Chapel Hill within the Town limits, the Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction (ETJ), and the Joint Planning Transition District (JPA). The ETJ and JPA jurisdictional areas are in Orange Co. and outside the Chapel Hill corporate limits. Both the ETJ and JPA areas are covered by Chapel Hill zoning and planning regulations. A map identifying each area is provided as Attachment 2.
The North Carolina State Demographer estimated population of the Town of Chapel Hill, as of July 1, 2005, is 52,397. This represents only the population within the Town’s corporate limits (both the Orange County and Durham County sections).
While there is no formal population estimate for the areas in Chapel Hill Extraterritorial Jurisdiction or the Chapel Hill Joint Planning Transition Area, it is possible to extrapolate a population estimate based on the number of dwelling units in those areas. The following dwelling unit data estimates are derived using the Orange County GIS Parcel Data:
According to the 2000 U.S. Census, there are approximately 2.2 people per household in Chapel Hill. The following table shows estimated population in each area of Chapel Hill, using estimated household size and number of dwelling units.
|
Chapel Hill Area |
Population Estimate |
% Population |
|
Town Limits |
52,397 |
95.5% |
|
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction |
1,800 |
3.3% |
|
Joint Planning Area |
673 |
1.2% |
|
Total |
54,870 |
100% |
Article 4.4 of the Town of Chapel Hill’s Land Use Management Ordinance establishes the intent of Zoning Amendments by stating that, “In order to establish and maintain sound, stable, and desirable development within the planning jurisdiction of the Town it is intended that this chapter shall not be amended except:
Article 4.4 further indicates:
It is further intended that, if amended, this chapter be amended only as reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public health, safety, or general welfare, and in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
We believe that a change to the Land Use Management Ordinance to adjust the composition of the Planning Board by reducing the number of ETJ members can be justified as a changed condition. As annexation has occurred and the Town has developed, the ETJ population has shrunk relative to the population within the Town limits. Population figures indicate that a Planning Board with two ETJ members is no longer proportionally correct, as contemplated by the Statute, as it relates to population figures for the Town and its ETJ.
Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed the proposal on June 5, 2007 and voted 9-0 to recommend approval of the attached Ordinance. The Board recommended that the change not become effective until one of the two existing ETJ members either resigns or has served two consecutive three year terms. A copy of the Summary of Planning Board Action is attached.
Staff’s Preliminary Recommendation: We recommend that the Council enact the attached Ordinance to change the Planning Board’s extraterritorial planning jurisdiction (ETJ) membership as defined in the Land Use Management Ordinance to reduce the Board’s ETJ membership from two to one ETJ representative in accordance with proportionate changes to population. We recommend that the Council enact the change, effective June 27.
We believe the change is appropriate because of the proportionate population figures, and do not recommend waiting several years to enact the change. Although it is unfortunate that an appointment has been recently made to the vacant County position, we note that the individual has not yet begun serving as a Planning Board member. He has not been oriented nor sworn in as a new member. We further recommend that the Council request that the County Commissioners allow the existing County-appointed ETJ member to remain.
