33 farmers and land owners, living in the Carrboro ETJ, have petitioned Orange County and the town of Carrboro to return jurisdiction for ETJ farms to Orange County.
PETITION TO REMAND DEVELOPMENT JURISDICTION
To: The Town of Carrboro, North
Carolina
Att: Carrboro Mayor Mark Chilton and Board of Aldermen
Carrboro Town Manager Steve Stewart
Chairman Valerie Foushee and
Orange County Board of Commissioners
From: The undersigned farm and land owners of Carrboro’s
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ)
Date: October 29, 2009
Dear Sirs and Madams,
We, the undersigned rural farm and land owners who reside within and
about Carrboro’s ETJ, and particularly those of us who reside within Carrboro’s
ETJ and its Watershed Residential zone, hereby require and respectfully request
that the town of Carrboro relinquish control over ETJ land and return
development jurisdiction for it to Orange County government as soon as is
possible for so long as we do not seek to urbanize our real property, or as defined
by procedures set forth in Section 160A-360 of the North Carolina General
Statutes.
We further request that this matter be placed on the respective agendas
for discussion at the next possible scheduled public hearings of both the
Carrboro Board of Aldermen and the Orange County Board of Commissioners,
with an advance notice of at least two weeks. The basis for our request is as
follows:
- Whereas
Carrboro’s leadership repeatedly has claimed that it has no interest in
annexing our land; and,
- Whereas
Carrboro has no expertise in managing farms or rural land; and,
- Whereas
we believe that ETJ land should be governed by those who have experience
with governing farms and rural land, and not by an urban management
principles and urban land-use ordinances; and,
- Whereas
the application of Carrboro’s land use ordinances to farms and rural land
is inappropriate and threatens our existence, our livelihood, our culture, our family life and, overall, our survival; and,
- Whereas
we believe that town policies foster continuing development of Carrboro’s
urban area and, thus, increasingly pose threats to our land, livestock
and livelihood; and,
- Whereas
there exists no statutory mandate that requires Carrboro to govern the
region known as its ETJ; and,
- Whereas
we receive no benefits and do not seek benefits from Carrboro’s urban
management; and,
- Whereas
we believe in the democratic process and inalienable rights guaranteed by
the U.S. Constitution and, as such, require the opportunity to elect those
who govern our land and the opportunity to serve on those elected
governing bodies; and,
- Whereas
there is precedent for remanding development jurisdiction to counties from
municipalities; and,
- Whereas
North Carolina has adopted a Farm Protection Plan administered by the
NCDA; and,
- Whereas
Orange County’s pending version has been described as “farmer friendly”
and is expected by year-end;
We hereby request that Carrboro’s leadership agree to relinquish
development jurisdiction, as above, and make a concerted effort to seek support
for and approval of the above from the Commissioners of Orange County at this
time; that this effort be initiated in good faith by all parties hereto by no
later than November 15, 2009; and that an amendment reflecting this change of
jurisdiction be formally adopted and acknowledged in the Joint Planning
Agreement, and any and all other relevant legal resources or mechanisms as
deemed necessary to ensure acknowledgement and complete compliance by the
governments of Orange County, Carrboro and Chapel Hill.
In the interim, we require that Carrboro cease to apply its urban land
use ordinances to ETJ land and farms for so long as we do not seek to urbanize
our real property; and proceed henceforth as if our land is presently governed
by Orange County’s ordinances from this day forward, and not by Carrboro’s
LUO.
[signatures/contact information
redacted for purpose of online submission]
CONTACT: W. Womble (removed)
Issues:
Comments
Nice try, Terri. Read the article. The Herald wrote:"Some of the farmers may never want to use their land for anything but farming, Chilton said. 'I want to respect that,' he said."How do you get "Chilton believes these farms should remain in Carrboro's ETJ" out of that?http://www.heraldsun.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Landowners+want+ETJ+freedom%20&id=4224945-Landowners+want+ETJ+freedom&instance=main_article
I think that landowners should carefully consider the implications of the request and so should the elected officials - so that we are all making informed choices. That means looking at all the implications of the proposed change, rather than giving a knee-jerk response.Incidentally, I think it is appropriate to be defensive when you misrepresent my statements.
Some observations, after some amateur investigation:
- Of the 30 properties listed by the petition's signers, 19 are within the town's planning jurisdiction and 11 are not.
- Of the 11 properties outside the town's planning jurisdiction, the owners of 2 of the properties own property in use value within the town's planning jurisdiction.
- Of the 19 properties within the town's planning jurisdiction, 5 are in use value. Of these 5 properties, 3 have the same owner.
I have been unsuccessfully trying to find a copy of this petition signators on line. The list was redacted (above). Is it available electronically?
in who signed it so far. A poster eariler in this thread seems to have access to that information. Thought that might be someplace easily found.I am not a farmer; I can't even get grass to grow reliably on my Chapel Hill gravel yard. Amending the ETJ in the manner suggested would be positive to me because I agree that the County can do a better job. It's puzzling why the ETJ exists at all since enforcement of building inspections within it (by Carrboro) is so demonstrably capricious, anyway, and there's no other purpose for the existence of the ETJ.
The material you quote combines incorrect information with nontransparent calculations to draw false conclusions.The Board of Aldermen adopted revisions to the water quality buffer requirements on March 24, 2009 [link to video; link to public hearing material]. They did so after holding a public hearing and after the proposed revisions were reviewed by several advisory boards, Orange County, the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission's Division of Water Quality, OWASA, and others.There was no increase in buffer widths from 30 feet to 150 feet in the University Lake watershed. Under the previous requirements for the watershed, buffers for perennial streams were 50 feet plus slope adjustment, and buffers for intermittent streams ranged from 50 to 100 feet depending on whether the stream flowed directly into the lake. Under the new requirements, total minimum buffer widths in the watershed are 100 feet for perennial streams, 60 feet for intermittent streams, and 30 feet for ephemeral streams.Likewise, there was no decrease in buffer widths from 30 feet to 15 feet for areas outside the watershed. Under the previous requirements, stream buffer rules applied in one way to the Northern Transition Area and in another way to the remaining areas outside the watershed. In the Northern Transition Area, buffers were 100 feet plus slope adjustment for perennial streams, 60 feet for intermittent streams, and 30 feet for minor intermittent streams. In other areas outside the watershed, the buffers were 50 feet for streams draining areas of 50 acres or more and 15 feet for streams draining areas less than 50 acres. Under the new requirements, total minimum buffer widths in all areas outside the watershed are 100 feet for perennial streams, 60 feet for intermittent streams, and 15 feet for ephemeral streams.Overall, estimated area in buffers within the University Lake watershed actually decreased slightly, whereas estimated area in buffers outside the watershed increased. In other words, there was no attempt to "shift the burden" to properties located in the watershed.
If you're asking whether the water quality buffers are greater in the University Lake watershed than elsewhere, the answer is yes. They are now, and they were before.
- Perennial streams, watershed: 100-foot streamside zone
- Perennial streams, outside of watershed: 50-foot streamside zone plus 50-foot stable vegetated zone
- Intermittent streams, watershed: 60-foot streamside zone
- Intermittent streams, outside of watershed: 30-foot streamside zone plus 30-foot stable vegetated zone
- Ephemeral streams, watershed: 30-foot stable vegetated zone
- Ephemeral streams, outside of watershed: 15-foot stable vegetated zone
All of this information and more is available in the material to which I provided a link in my previous comment (and in the ordinance itself).
The woman who got mad because she illegally built on her property? Was she in Carrboro proper or in this extra-jurisdictional area?With all due respect to the folks with legitimate concerns, there is something really fishy about all of this. It has a 9/12 feel. Can we expect to see Glen Beck standing on a farm outside of Carrboro eating veal, carrying a side arm and crying about how:"The Mayor of Carrboro wants the good, honest people of North Carolina to comply with rules and regulations that make it hard for them to put income generating properties that would save their family farm." This whole thing is just really strange.
Hi, Terri. The list above provides the same information as the previous narrative, just in a little more detail. Thus, as you observed, the total buffer widths for perennial streams (100 feet) and intermittent streams (60 feet) come out the same both in and out of the watershed. The difference comes down to what makes up those buffers (ie, streamside only vs streamside plus stable vegetated area). The letter you quoted does not simply conflict with or have a different interpretation of the ordinance, but provides numbers that seem to me to be impossible to arrive at from the ordinance.
How did you come to that conclusion from the preceding discussion?I can't speak to how the revised buffers may affect any particular property. However, as I stated previously, the overall estimated effect of the buffer revisions is a slight decrease in buffer acreage in the watershed and a slight increase in buffer acreage outside the watershed. This information does not support the claim that the ETJ has lost acreage to the revised buffers, nor does it support the notion that the revised buffers have shifted the burden of water quality protection to the ETJ from other areas.See background materials on the text amendment here (PDF).
affects our philosphies and the creek-buffer issue affects water quality and subsequently our health.
This is an interesting issue for me for a number of reasons. I missed it the first time around and am still having trouble understanding some of the issues. How was the figure of 1.4M loss of land use arrived at? I looked in the County tax records. I think I have the right parcel of land and its total value is considerably less and it use value even much more so. I guess I don't understand how farmland is taxed but from what I can tell the number seems way out of line. Can someone explain where that number comes from?The issue of the rural buffer is interesting for me. I see the boundary between the RB and the area under urban jurisdiction as the boundary of potential urbanization. It seems to me the boundary is the issue and that it needs to make sense. Are the properties in question all contiguous with the RB? Would adding them to the RB compromise the integrity of the boundary? Are the properties in question inside the CHCCS school district?
I'm not a farmer, but I'm an OC resident and vote in BoCC elections. How can we help?