Category: Planning & Zoning

Does anyone else see the problem here?

The video above is a compilation of parts of three Ramseur board of commissioners meetings showing the timeline and discussion leading up to a pretty significant change in how we constitute our planning board here.

On December 20, 2022, Commissioner Parrish proposed an amendment to the administrative ordinance in our town’s corporate charter governing how many members sit on our planning board and where they must live. At that time the rule stipulated that all five planning board members must be residents of the Town of Ramseur. Mr. Parrish proposed a change that would allow planning board members to be anyone living within one mile of Ramseur’s corporate limits. His reasoning for this had to do with how hard it is to get people to serve on that particular board, so he wanted to expand the pool.

Counsellor Wilhoit expressed concern that a public hearing might be necessary to make such a change and the issue was tabled. The intention, on December 20, was to discuss and possibly take action during a special meeting scheduled for January 10, but that did not occur. Instead, the discussion resumed at the January 17 meeting. A motion was made, seconded, and approved, with a minimal quorum of only three commissioners, zero discussion among board members, and without any public comment, let alone a public hearing, and now non-taxpayers get a vote in how our zoning ordinances are written and any other work done by the planning board.

On February 10, 2023, I wrote, “[W]hen I was researching ETJ, I found a couple of sections in chapter 160D that apply specifically to planning boards and boards of adjustment, how they are to be composed, and what the function of an alternate should be.

“[T]he alternates our commissioners are always searching for belong to the board of adjustment, not the planning board. There should not be alternate members on our planning board any more than there should be alternate members of the board of commissioners allowed to sit, discuss, and vote on issues before that board when a commissioner can’t attend meetings.”

It’s pretty obvious that Mr. Parrish read my article, and he understands that I know what I’m talking about better than he does because immediately after appointing Sanda Bullin to the planning board during the February 21 meeting, despite the fact that there were already five seated members, the next issue the commissioner wanted to discuss had to do with the board of adjustment – currently the board of commissioners – and changes that need to be made to that board. The thought that a decision he could be involved in might end up in court absolutely terrifies Mr. Parrish. See for yourself, the clip is only about three minutes long

Unfair? No, it’s not fairness the commissioner is concerned about. He’s terrified of landing on the wrong side of a legal decision and having his name stuck to it. In other words, he’s afraid of being made to look foolish. Sorry, commissioner, it’s much too late for that.

Commissioner Parrish claims to be concerned about the looming growth of our community, and that is a legitimate concern, but instead of slowing down and following the process for adopting ETJ and then dealing with the question of representation, the commissioner was in an almost frantic rush to appoint Ms. Bullin to that board. The question I think we’re all asking is, why? What’s the hurry? Why not follow the process laid out by our legislators in Raleigh? Why is it so important to have Ms. Bullin, who lives outside our town and does not pay our taxes, sitting on that board and able to vote?

Commissioner Parrish is so concerned about this issue that he wants to circumvent the rules laid out in Chapters 160D-202 & 307, and change parts of our town’s corporate charter so he can appoint the candidate of his choosing, rather than risk letting the county commissioners appoint someone of their choosing when the appropriate time arrives. The only change our corporate charter needs is the one that would mandate hiring a town manager.

The state only requires three members to sit on our planning board. Not five; three. Prior to the meeting on February 21, according to our town’s official website, there were already five members, and as I have proven, no alternate members are needed for that board.

If we can’t get a quorum of three people to show up for planning board meetings perhaps the solution isn’t loading it full of your own toadies Mr. Parrish. Maybe a better solution would be to shrink the board to its statutory minimum of three members until such time as Ramseur does adopt an ETJ, and then, following the proper statutory process, we could add one or even two residents from that area to the planning board.

Mr. Parrish, I know you read that article because you’re an email subscriber to this site, and I know you understood at least enough of it to know that you wanted to wash your hands of all that tricky sticky board of adjustment business. But you had worked so carefully to accommodate Sandra’s appointment over the past few months I guess you must have felt obligated to see it through, so you stayed the course and steered that boat right onto the reef. Oh, sure, changing that administrative ordinance may have been legal, but you and I and most other citizens of our community know that what you did was unnecessary and self-serving, and we will not forget.

What’s a moratorium, and why would Ramseur impose one on legal businesses?

In America, we’re not supposed to let the government pick winners and losers; that’s what the free market is supposed to be for, or so I was taught. Business moratoria are such a serious business that the state of North Carolina imposes very strict regulations on how, when, and why a municipality can ban, even temporarily, any otherwise legal business. Last December, our board of commissioners imposed a 120 days moratorium on any new ‘electronic gaming establishments’ in Ramseur.

I really don’t care about electronic gaming places one way or the other. I do think they send most of the money they collect out of our community, and that’s not ideal, and if they are breaking the law, then shut’em down, but if Raleigh says they’re legal, I thought the American way was to let the market decide whether they survive or not.

Here is a link to the relevant statute:  § 160D-107.  Moratoria. 

The statute says “local governments may adopt temporary moratoria on any development approval required by law, except for the purpose of developing and adopting new or amended plans or development regulations governing residential uses. The duration of any moratorium shall be reasonable in light of the specific conditions that warrant imposition of the moratorium and may not exceed the period of time necessary to correct, modify, or resolve such conditions.

Except in cases of imminent and substantial threat to public health or safety, before adopting a development regulation imposing a development moratorium the governing board shall hold a legislative hearing. 

Moratorium does not apply to any project for which a valid building permit [has been] issued, to any project for which a special use permit application has been accepted as complete, to development set forth in a site-specific vesting plan  [already] approved, to development for which substantial expenditures have already been made in good-faith reliance on a prior valid development approval, or to preliminary or final subdivision plats that have been accepted for review by the local government prior to the call for a hearing to adopt the moratorium. 

Required Statements. – Any development regulation establishing a development moratorium must include, at the time of adoption, each of the following:

(1)        A statement of the problems or conditions necessitating the moratorium and what courses of action, alternative to a moratorium, were considered by the local government and why those alternative courses of action were not deemed adequate.

(2)        A statement of the development approvals subject to the moratorium and how a moratorium on those approvals will address the problems or conditions leading to imposition of the moratorium.

(3)        A date for termination of the moratorium and a statement setting forth why that duration is reasonably necessary to address the problems or conditions leading to imposition of the moratorium.

(4)        A statement of the actions, and the schedule for those actions, proposed to be taken by the local government during the duration of the moratorium to address the problems or conditions leading to imposition of the moratorium.

No moratorium may be subsequently renewed or extended for any additional period unless the local government has taken all reasonable and feasible steps proposed to be taken in its ordinance establishing the moratorium to address the problems or conditions leading to imposition of the moratorium and unless new facts and conditions warrant an extension. 

Any person aggrieved by the imposition of a moratorium on development approvals required by law may apply to the General Court of Justice for an order enjoining the enforcement of the moratorium.

That’s a lot to keep track of, and I don’t think our board made much of an effort to meet all those requirements.

The commissioners held a mandatory legislative hearing that only one person seemed to care anything about, and he didn’t care much because he left before it ended. It was a very short hearing. Then, during the regular meeting that followed, Commissioner Parrish moved to impose a 120 days moratorium so our planning board – chaired by someone who lives in Greensboro – and our police department can “work on” our ordinances and/or figure out what occupied piece of real estate in town they can re-zone for ‘adult’ businesses. That way if anyone comes to town looking for a place to open an electronic game room, a gentlemen’s club, a bar, or any legal ‘adult’ business, the only parcel of land zoned for that use will already be occupied by a house, a lube shop, a grocery store, or maybe even a church; any developed real estate that won’t likely become unoccupied in the near future will do.

Does this sound ridiculous yet?

When imposing an economic moratorium a governing board must state what issues made the moratorium necessary; how it will address those problems; issue a statement addressing any pending zoning permits, special use permits, variances, etc. that will be subject to the moratorium; state how a moratorium on those ventures will address the stated issues; set an end date for the moratorium; say why it’s going to take that long; and produce a schedule of specific actions that will be taken during the moratorium.

I watched an elected Ramseur commissioner suggest, in a recorded public meeting, how to keep legal businesses out of our town, but if a business is legal and operating within the law that’s a really questionable thing for our government to be doing. I felt dirty after watching that video; like I needed to bathe. I thought chamber of commerce people were supposed to encourage business growth in a town, not tell them to stay away.

During the discussion, the commissioner spoke of police officers “going out there,” and “warning them about certain situations”.  Please tell us, commissioner, who is “them,” where are they, and what situations were you talking about. Give us details. Don’t roll up in our town hall and impose restrictions on the local economy without a stack of evidence to support your actions. Does the business in question have a name we might recognize? Is it located at an address we could find on a map? Are there police reports of actual incidents at that place of business that citizens could request and read?

I can’t speak for any other taxpayers in Ramseur, but I get really tired of all the fearmongering I hear coming from that seat on our board, used as excuses to spend more money or restrict commerce.  A simple statement like, “On (date) patrolman X responded to a call about Y at 123 Sesame Street about activity Z and took actions A, B, or C,” and a police report or three to back it up would go a long way towards helping everyone understand from what or whom you want to protect us.

If whatever is going on wherever it’s happening is so bad that it merits this kind of heavy-handed interference in the local economy – a moratorium on a legal business type – the board of commissioners and its planning board are both failing, because this isn’t the first moratorium that I can recall. We keep doing this again and again, like some bad remake of the movie, Groundhog Day, and there’s no excuse. As commissioners, this is your job, and in my opinion, you have all failed. If conditions somewhere are so bad that we need to take this kind of drastic action, we need to be provided with concrete facts, not vague fearmongering about bad elements and unspecified problems.

An assertion was also made that neighboring business owners have complained about a lack of parking for their customers. That’s a fair complaint, but it sounds like a problem caused by inadequate zoning regulations in the past, which allowed commercial development without adequate parking. I suspect the properties in question were developed long ago, maybe even before Ramseur had zoning ordinances. Perhaps we should ask that guy from Greensboro about it since he’s been meddling in our local government for decades.

Commissioner Parrish stated that problems “come around those businesses,” and that, in turn, leads to increased call volume for the police department and strains the budget. He further stated that the imposition of this moratorium “gives us time to work on our ordinances,” and “provide safety to our community.” A moratorium also “gives us time (120 days) to work on our ordinances”.

Would these be the same ordinances that we paid a consultant thousands of dollars to help us update a couple of years ago to meet the new chapter 160D mandates?  The same ordinances we now need to spend more money paying yet another consultant to review? The same ordinances that non-residents of Ramseur get to vote on now?

Exactly what are the “problems that come around those businesses.”?

Someone on the board must have asked that question because on the video members of the police department can be heard telling the board members about how a “bad element” follows these businesses, and how the patrons of these establishments often lose all their money and then break into nearby homes or businesses to steal more money to gamble.

I see headlines about people getting shot at nightclubs and bars, and maybe even at these gaming businesses too, somewhere, just like you do, but if people in Ramseur were being robbed by disgruntled fish skill players I think we’d all know about it. Show me concrete evidence of a crime wave like this in our community and I’ll be the first in line to look for ways to address it.

As for the commissioner’s statement that electronic gaming establishments cause an unmanageable increase in police calls and strain the budget; no, I’m sorry, you don’t get to tell us that more calls to 911 help justify increased funding for our police department, and then tell us that more calls strain your department or our budget. I mean no disrespect to our police officers. They have a very stressful, often dangerous job to do and limited funds to do it with, but you can’t have it both ways.

Worst of all was the bit at the end where the commissioner and the attorney sat there passing judgment on people who make a living letting other people waste money on electronic games. The commissioner actually sat there, in a recorded public meeting, and explained how a local government can re-zone any given property to keep otherwise legal businesses out of Ramseur. The recording doesn’t lie, and the scheme described would generate more paperwork and expensive permitting processes that, for now, only a paid consultant can walk our planning board through.

This moratorium was a bad idea and I’m having a hard time understanding how the statutory statements read into the record did anything constructive for our town, let alone how all of this doesn’t leave us vulnerable to expensive legal action from any competent land development attorney.

Planning boards and boards of adjustment are not the same.

We’re doing these things wrong here in Ramseur, and I’m about to show you how, but first, we need to make sure we all understand what a quasi-judicial decision is.

Quasi-judicial decisions involve the application of ordinance policies to individual situations. Examples include variances, special- and conditional-use permits (even if issued by the governing board), appeals, and interpretations. These decisions involve two key elements—the finding of facts regarding the specific proposal and the exercise of judgment and discretion in applying predetermined policies to the situation. Since quasi-judicial decisions do not involve setting new policies, the broad public notice requirements that exist for legislative decisions do not apply. However, the courts have imposed fairly strict procedural requirements on these decisions in order to protect the legal rights of the parties involved. Quasi-judicial decisions are most often assigned to boards of adjustment, appointed by the governing board.

The critical part to remember is that quasi-judicial decisions are legal decisions that can wind up being examined and either upheld or overturned in a district or superior court, and things have gotten ugly and expensive either way if we find ourselves in court.

The governing body of the Town of Ramseur is the board of commissioners. By statute, the board of commissioners is empowered to appoint a number of subordinate boards; among them are the planning board and one called the board of adjustment.

Eight years ago or so those two boards were made up of the same members, but one day a question came along that required a quasi-judicial hearing from the board of adjustment, and along the way to the hearing someone realized there was a problem.

It turns out that there was a clause buried in statutes that said the planning board could offer a preliminary forum for review of quasi-judicial decisions, which they had already apparently done, provided that no part of the forum or its recommendation be used as a basis for the deciding board. That complicated things.

The statute has since been updated with similar, if not identical language, and incorporated into 160D – 301, as we will see below.

So the planning board went to the board of commissioners and said, “Hey, we’re not allowed to do this.”

Well, the board of commissioners had to get that decision decided, because money was involved and time is money, and since so few people in Ramseur have time or enough interest in managing an enterprise as complicated as a small town for a couple of hundred bucks a month or less, the commissioners quickly appointed themselves to be the board of adjustment.

Problem solved! Not so fast.

That solution worked because none of the commissioners had any conflicts of interest in the question being decided that day, and it’s worked a few more times since then, but it won’t work forever because some decisions a board of adjustment makes must be decided by a four-fifths (4/5) majority, and there’s also a statutory mandate for staggered three-year terms for board of adjustment members.

The other day when I was researching ETJ, I found a couple of sections in chapter 160D that apply specifically to planning boards and boards of adjustment, how they are to be composed, and what the function of an alternate should be.

The alternates our commissioners are constantly trying to recruit are supposed to be alternate members of the board of adjustment. They are not supposed to sit on the planning board, nor vote on planning board decisions.

See for yourself. The relevant sections of the statutes are copied below. Again, as with the last post, all bolding and CAPITALIZATION other than section headings are mine. Headings are linked to the source.

(a)    Composition. – A local government may by ordinance provide for the appointment and compensation of a planning board or may designate one or more boards or commissions to perform the duties of a planning board. A planning board established pursuant to this section may include, but shall not be limited to, one or more of the following:

(1)    A planning board of any size or composition deemed appropriate, organized in any manner deemed appropriate; provided, however, the board shall have at least three members.

(2)    A joint planning board created by two or more local governments pursuant to Part 1 of Article 20 of Chapter 160A of the General Statutes. *This part doesn’t apply to us.

(b)    Duties. – A planning board MAY be assigned the following powers and duties:

(1)    To prepare, review, maintain, monitor, and periodically update and recommend to the governing board a comprehensive plan, and such other plans as deemed appropriate, and conduct ongoing related research, data collection, mapping, and analysis.

(2)    To facilitate and coordinate citizen engagement and participation in the planning process.

(3)    To develop and recommend policies, ordinances, development regulations, administrative procedures, and other means for carrying out plans in a coordinated and efficient manner.

(4)    To advise the governing board concerning the implementation of plans, including, but not limited to, review and comment on all zoning text and map amendments as required by G.S. 160D-604.

(5)    To exercise any functions in the administration and enforcement of various means for carrying out plans that the governing board may direct.

(6)    To provide a preliminary forum for review of quasi-judicial decisions, provided that no part of the forum or recommendation may be used as a basis for the deciding board.

(7)    To perform any other related duties that the governing board may direct.  (2019-111, s. 2.4; 2020-3, s. 4.33(a); 2020-25, s. 51(a), (b), (d).)

——

Pay attention to sub-section (6) above. One of the statutory duties of a planning board is to “provide a preliminary forum for review of quasi-judicial decisions, provided that no part of the forum or recommendation may be used for a basis for the deciding board.”

Who or what is the deciding board? The board of adjustment!

  •  160D-302.  Boards of adjustment.

(a)    Composition. – A local government may by ordinance provide for the appointment and compensation of a board of adjustment consisting of five or more members, each to be appointed for three-year terms. In appointing the original members or in the filling of vacancies caused by the expiration of the terms of existing members, the governing board may appoint certain members for less than three years so that the terms of all members shall not expire at the same time. The governing board may appoint and provide compensation for alternate members to serve on the board in the absence or temporary disqualification of any regular member or to fill a vacancy pending appointment of a member. Alternate members shall be appointed for the same term, at the same time, and in the same manner as regular members. Each alternate member serving on behalf of any regular member has all the powers and duties of a regular member.

(b)    Duties. – The board shall hear and decide all matters upon which it is required to pass under any statute or development regulation adopted under this Chapter. The ordinance may designate a planning board or governing board to perform any of the duties of a board of adjustment in addition to its other duties and may create and designate specialized boards to hear technical appeals. If any board other than the board of adjustment is assigned decision-making authority for any quasi-judicial matter, that board shall comply with all of the procedures and the process applicable to a board of adjustment in making quasi-judicial decisions.  (2019-111, s. 2.4; 2020-3, s. 4.33(a); 2020-25, s. 51(a), (b), (d).)

——

The board of adjustment can be the planning board, but the planning board can’t review or make recommendations in quasi-judicial decisions to be decided by the board of adjustment.

Either way, the alternates our commissioners are always searching for belong to the board of adjustment, not the planning board. There should not be alternate members on our planning board any more than there should be alternate members of the board of commissioners allowed to sit, discuss, and vote on issues before that board when a commissioner can’t attend meetings. Can you imagine the butt-hurt such a suggestion would cause?

We’ve been doing this, and a lot of other business, wrong in Ramseur for a very long time. I had hoped, almost four years ago, that the new board we elected in 2019 would be smarter than the old board members they replaced, and I don’t think I’m the only one disappointed today.

Statutes dictate three-year staggered terms for the board of adjustment members, and since our commissioners serve four-year terms, that solution doesn’t immediately meet the state’s mandate. A five-member board of adjustment, separate from the planning board, needs to be recruited and properly empaneled soon.

Our planning board should remain a five-person board, assuming there are five people living in Ramseur who are interested enough in that work to show up consistently and get it done; if not then maybe that board should be reduced to only three members.

Until such time as ETJ is adopted by Ramseur, no members of any board or commission should reside outside the municipal boundaries of the Town of Ramseur. If ETJ is adopted, any new members of the planning board should be in addition to the resident members, and those appointments must follow the procedures laid out in chapter 160D-307.

Regular and alternate members of a board of adjustment should be recruited with the understanding that those duties are only required on an as-needed basis. One or two sitting commissioners could do double duty as board of adjustment members, provided the state’s mandatory staggered three-year terms are observed. Former commissioners, former mayors, or perhaps members of the ABC board could also be persuaded to serve in those capacities if no other qualified candidates step forward.

It would be smart to have a list of qualified, willing alternates available should a member of the board of adjustment need to recuse him or herself from a decision. They could be vetted for conflicts of interest on a case-by-case basis, sworn in as needed, sit through a hearing, help render a decision, and get on with their lives.

Should Ramseur adopt ETJ?

What’s all this talk about ETJ and why does one of our commissioners want to add “outside citizens” – people who don’t live or pay property taxes in Ramseur – to the planning board? That was the main question on my mind when I left the regular January meeting of our board of commissioners. So I went back and watched the video of the December meeting again to see what I’d missed.

[NOTE: I embedded the video from the Town of Ramseur’s YouTube page below, but as you can see, the video owner – Town of Ramseur – has disabled playback anywhere but on YouTube. Not my circus.]

The work of managing our town’s affairs is overwhelming the administrative staff, and one commissioner has convinced his fellow board members that the solution is for the town to adopt ETJ and change the composition of our planning board.

We’ll get to those changes in a bit, but first, what is ETJ?

ETJ stands for extraterritorial jurisdiction. It is an area outside a municipality’s corporate limits in which the city can exercise land use and zoning regulations. 

“When a city adopts an extraterritorial-boundary ordinance, the city acquires jurisdiction for all of its ordinances adopted under Chapter 160D, and the county loses its jurisdiction for the same range of ordinances. This includes not only zoning and subdivision ordinances but also housing and building codes and regulations on historic districts and historic landmarks, open spaces, community development, erosion and sedimentation control, floodways, mountain ridges, and roadway corridors.”

How does adopting ETJ do us any good today? All I can see it doing for the moment is adding to the almost $224,000 we’re budgeted to spend this year on contracted and professional services and administrative salaries.  A little over $100,000 of that pays for our code enforcement/planning consultants, legal counsel, and any other consultants advising our clerk/finance officer and her staff. Some of that money would be better spent on a town manager.

According to comments made by Commissioner Parrish at the December and January board meetings, our local ordinances specified that our planning board is to be composed of five members. Chapter 160D of North Carolina General Statutes mandates a minimum of three members for such a board but otherwise leaves it to the discretion of local governments to decide how many members to appoint, and where those members can live.

Prior to the adoption of the commissioner’s amendment, which passed 4-0, only people residing within the municipal limits of Ramseur were eligible to sit on our planning board. Now, anyone living within one mile of town limits can be appointed and vote on our planning board’s decisions. Seems like that cart is way out in front of the horse.

The first justification we’ll likely hear for this change will be ‘nobody wants to serve’ so let’s stop for a moment and consider why it seems like no one stays on any board in this town for long. Since I moved into town in late 2014, eighteen different people have occupied the five seats on our board of commissioners. Eighteen different commissioners in less than ten years.

If we had replaced every commissioner in every municipal election held here since 2015, that would only have been ten individuals. Turnover on the planning board has been about as bad; maybe worse. My wife applied to fill an open seat in 2016 and was turned away. She’d have done well. In early 2020 I had a seat on the planning board for a few months, and I’d be happy to tell you why I quit.

The planning board is an insult to every citizen of Ramseur and will remain such until its chairman resigns. He lives in Greensboro, in Guilford County, and he has for years. He’s gotten away with it by claiming to live here on his voter registration, and probably on his driver’s license, and the fact that he owns a couple of rented houses on Bush Street.

Everyone connected to our local government knows this and has known for longer than I can remember. I refused to sit on that board while every elected official in town looked the other way at what I consider a crime on par with voter fraud.

Less than a month ago one of our elected commissioners convinced his fellow board members to alter the administrative ordinances of our town so people living up to one mile outside town can have a voice in our local government. Those folks are more than welcome to initiate voluntary satellite annexation. Pay taxes here like the rest of us; that’s how you get to have a voice in Ramseur.

The government we have today is every bit as dysfunctional as it was before the 2019 election, and in some ways, it may even be worse. This is why we can’t get better leaders to step forward in our community. Nobody wants to serve in elected or appointed office in Ramseur, because it’s not worth the heartache and misery.

A commissioner says our administrative staff is overworked and all the experts he talks to tell him that planning and zoning administration is usually done by a town manager. Those same experts also told him that under no circumstances should planning and zoning be administered by the chief financial officer. I could not agree more. Both jobs are far too important, time-consuming, and complicated for one individual to try to fill both roles.

Below I have copied the most relevant text from Chapter 160D, the statute the mayor and attorney Wilhoit regularly reference in board meetings when discussing planning, zoning, and code enforcement issues. I have tried to edit the text in such a way that you can easily read through it and understand what the state requires without wading through mountains of text irrelevant to our town. Other than the section headings, all bolding and CAPITALIZATION below are mine. You can compare the original text by clicking HERE.

Begin quoted text:

  • 160D-202.  Municipal extraterritorial jurisdiction.

(a)    Any city MAY exercise the powers granted to cities under this Chapter within a defined area extending not more than one mile beyond its contiguous corporate limits… Pursuant to G.S. 160A-58.4, extraterritorial municipal planning and development regulation may be extended only from the primary corporate boundary of a city and not from the boundary of satellite areas of the city.

(d)   Any municipality proposing to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction under this Chapter SHALL notify the owners of all parcels of land proposed for addition to the area of extraterritorial jurisdiction, as shown on the county tax records. The notice SHALL be sent by first-class mail to the last addresses listed for affected property owners in the county tax records. The notice SHALL inform the landowner of the effect of the extension of extraterritorial jurisdiction, of the landowner’s RIGHT to participate in a LEGISLATIVE HEARING PRIOR TO ADOPTION of any ordinance extending the area of extraterritorial jurisdiction, as provided in G.S. 160D-601, and of the RIGHT of all residents of the area TO APPLY to the board of COUNTY COMMISSIONERS to serve as a representative on the planning board and the board of adjustment, as provided in G.S. 160D-303. The notice shall be mailed at least 30 days prior to the date of the hearing. 

(e)    Any council exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction under this Chapter SHALL adopt an ordinance specifying the areas to be included based upon existing or projected urban development and areas of critical concern to the city, as evidenced by officially adopted plans for its development… Boundaries shall be defined, to the extent feasible, in terms of geographical features identifiable on the ground [and] may follow parcel ownership boundaries. 

(f)    The county MAY, ON REQUEST of the city council, exercise any or all of these powers in any or all areas lying within the city’s corporate limits or within the city’s specified area of extraterritorial jurisdiction.

  • 160D-307.  Extraterritorial representation on boards.

(a)    When a city elects to exercise extraterritorial powers under this Chapter, it SHALL provide a means of proportional representation based on population for residents of the extraterritorial area to be regulated… Representation shall be provided by appointing AT LEAST ONE resident of the entire extraterritorial planning and development regulation area to the planning board [and the] board of adjustment.

(b)    The extraterritorial representatives on a city advisory board … SHALL be appointed by the board of COUNTY commissioners with jurisdiction over the area. The COUNTY SHALL make the appointments within 90 days following the receipt of a request from the city that the appointments be made…If a board of county commissioners fails to make these appointments within 90 days AFTER receiving a resolution from the city council requesting that they be made, the city council MAY make them. 

  • 160D-308.  Rules of procedure.

Rules of procedure that are consistent with the provisions of this Chapter MAY be adopted by the governing board for any or all boards created under this Article. In the absence of action by the governing board, each board created under this Article is AUTHORIZED to adopt its own rules of procedure that are consistent with the provisions of this Chapter. A copy of ANY adopted rules of procedure SHALL be maintained by the local government CLERK or such other official as DESIGNATED BY ORDINANCE and POSTED on the local government Web site if one exists. Each board SHALL keep minutes of its proceedings. 

  • 160D-310.  Appointments to boards.

Unless specified otherwise by statute or local ordinance, all appointments to boards authorized by this Chapter shall be made by the governing board of the local government. The governing board MAY establish reasonable procedures to solicit, review, and make appointments. 

  • 160D-402.  Administrative staff.

(c)    A local government MAY enter into CONTRACTS WITH another city, COUNTY, or combination thereof under which the parties agree to create a joint staff for the enforcement of State and local laws specified in the agreement.

End quoted text.

ETJ is a lengthy and expensive process that needs to be played out over several months or years. Chapter 160D allows us to partner with our county government to share the costs of code enforcement. In fact, we already do that to an extent; building inspections and animal control are examples of services the county provides through contracts with Ramseur.

If we decide to adopt ETJ, now or in the future, the statutes outlined above contain a process for adding proportional representation from ETJ to our planning board, at the appropriate time, and without rewriting of our administrative ordinances. Ramseur is free to contract with the county for zoning and code enforcement, and I’d wager it could be done for less money than we’d pay a small army of consultants.

It might be wise for Ramseur to study ETJ and perhaps one day adopt some, but we have much bigger issues to face and decisions to make today. As for the ordinance amendment that opened up voting seats on our planning board to non-residents of Ramseur, that horse needs to be put back in the barn, now.

That’s not how any of this works, and in my next post, I’ll explain why, and how it should.