Rono
07-18-2004, 08:51 PM
To All: ETJ UPDATE
Below is the “In My Opinion” letter that was sent to the Cary News Newspaper. It explains in a detailed time line about the questions which have been brought up regarding Cary’s annexation 2 years ago of Ten Ten Road and West Lake Road. Read it at your leisure to draw you own conclusions.
The bottom line is that the Wake County Land Use Committee would not make a recommendation at its July 14th meeting due to the fact that if this purported annexation two year ago was illegal, then the ETJ requested by them is also illegal. (This means Cary has requested more jurisdictional control over more property than allowed by law IF the annexation two years ago was illegal) The law only allows for a community to gain jurisdictional control (ETJ) over property that is not more than 3 miles from its contiguous border,
Cary believed that by annexing Ten Ten and West Lake Road, it could claim that properties previously satellite annexed in the Middle Creek area would then become “contiguous” due to the fact that Ten Ten connects to the Towns existing town limits. Take away this purported annexation, and the ETJ request is for the area larger than the 3 mile limit. (For the record, this is the largest ETJ request ever in Wake County)
Consider also the fact that no one was notified two years ago about this sneaky annexation, since Cary claims it was just for the roadway. When is the last time you heard a roadway speak out about an action taken by governmental body at a required governmental public hearing? They actually had a public hearing on this. It is recorded that no one spoke…I guess no part of the road could make it to that meeting!. (For the record, Cary called this a voluntary annexation which requires, by law, that they hold a public hearing)
One can only imagine the roadway volunteering to be annexed. Maybe it went something like this. “Uh hey Cary, roadway here. We, the roadway would like to volunteer to be annexed even though you don’t fix the bad part of us in front of you own Fire Hall #6. Yes, we the roadway think you need to be able to connect to other areas you are taking and we though we could help you out by volunteering to be annexed. Yep, by gully, sign us up to be a part of your town and include us in how much property is volunteering to be annexed. That should add some acreage to them there statistics on how many want to be a part of your town. We the roadway are here to volunteer! ”
You be the judge on who is trying to stretch the truth and the laws here. We are quite sure voluntary annexation laws were not meant for roadways!
But wait! The roadway sits on adjoining property owners “easement” property. We believe those property owners should have been notified about the purported annexation of part of their property!. (and it definitely should not have been a “voluntary” annexation) Now serious questions are being raised about it and Cary Town Officials have no answers that they are willing to share during public meetings or in writing. Unfortunately, we the people are probably going to have to challenge this in court.
If Cary continues to stand by this purported annexation, than what this means is that government can violate laws (or interpret them in anyway they wish) and we, the people, from who government is supposed to serve, will probably have to pay an attorney to fight them in court. What is wrong with this picture? Government by the people?…ya right..certainly not in Cary
It kind of reminds me of election time. Seems like Cary “will do anything” to gain control of your property! Stay tuned because this should get real interesting!
Questions about Past Annexation Touches Some Raw Nerves
By Ron Thoreson
The saga of Cary’s aggressive ways continues. At the Wake County Land Use Committee last week, Cary’s request for planning and zoning jurisdiction (ETJ) over parts of Dutchman Downs, Swift Creek and Middle Creek was again tabled because of unanswered questions about Cary’s annexation of Ten Ten Road.
In July of 2002, Cary purportedly annexed just the pavement of parts of State Road Ten Ten and West Lake Road. This purported annexation was so they could make the 376 acres from an earlier satellite annexation contiguous with the rest of the town limits.
Annexation of these parts of roadways would technically link the 376 satellite acres to the rest of Cary. This connection would allow Cary to then annex more land in Middle Creek—land that is closer to Holly Springs--without exceeding the 10% limitation on total acreage in satellite areas that are not contiguous with the rest of the town.
Cary apparently considered the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) to be the owner of the annexed property and only notified the DOT and not the citizens who actually own the underlying land. However, the DOT only has an “easement” over and with the underlying land. An easement is merely a right or privilege that a person (entity) may have in another’s land, as in a right of way. The underlying land is still listed on deeds for the land adjoining State Road 1010 and West Lake Road by use of the legal description on each deed of a parallel boundary “easement” This simply means that each owner’s property runs to the centerline of the road. Since Cary purportedly annexed the land used in the state’s easement for the roadway, each parcel of land is now, if by chance the annexation was legal, in two separate jurisdictions—the part under the road and part of the “easement” that is now in the Town of Cary and the part next to the road “easement” which is still in unincorporated Wake County.
The property owners along Ten Ten Road did not consent to this purported annexation of this piece of their land. State law requires that property owners must be notified if their property is going to be annexed involuntarily. Most do not even know that some of their property has been annexed by the Town of Cary. Given the strong opposition to expansion of the Town of Cary jurisdiction over their neighborhoods, it is highly unlikely that these people would ever agree to the voluntary annexation of their property. (This is what Cary performed, according to its July 11th 2002 minutes--a “voluntary” annexation)
What’s even more troubling is the reaction from Town Staff when this subject is brought up. In January of this year, following a Cary Town Council Planning meeting, I asked Susan Moran (Cary Public Relations Director who was standing beside Mr. Ricky Barker, a town planning official, and Laurie Clowers and her cameraman of WRAL TV) if holding a public hearing, where only the pavement of the roadway could speak for or against its own annexation as a directly affected party, was intended to facilitate the Town of Cary in: A) just annexing the road, only; or B) using it’s sign ordinance against the critics of Cary who were exercising their freedom of speech. I was concerned because StopCary signs were being removed from this area and I suspect the Cary sign police may have been doing so.
Ms Moran’s reply (which so shocked me that I wrote a formal complaint to the Town of Cary about it) was “If you don’t like what we did why don’t you just run for State Office so you can change it and quit being such a bother to us!!” She never did answer the questions.
Getting no answers from Ms. Moran prompted me to again ask, at the June 9th Land Use Committee, whether or not Cary’s annexation of these roads was a legal annexation. You see, this is very important because without this road annexation, Cary’s request for extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) over this area will not comply with state requirements. As an answer to my question here, I was told by the Committee chairperson that the questions would be looked into and an answer would be forthcoming at the next meeting held on July 14th
A few days later, I asked Mr. Tim Clarke, the Wake County planner in charge of this ETJ process, some questions about this annexation He just responded that other towns use railroad right of ways to do things like Cary did when it ran a water line along 1010 prior to annexing this roadway. (Cary added a water line before annexing the property, but that is another story) He had no answer to the question of “was this a legal annexation?”
So, two weeks ago, (five days before the July 14th Land Use Committee meeting,) I sent an e-mail to all the necessary Cary Town Officials asking the same type questions. I have yet to receive one response from the Ten Cary Officials I sent the questions to..
Next, during the July 14th Land Use Committee meeting, Mr. Ulma made a lengthy presentation about the ETJ area and answered questions from the prior meeting. Only he failed to address the annexation of Ten Ten Road. When I finally had my turn to speak up about this question, I inquired as to why he did not have an answer to this important matter. He stood up again and explained that “due to the unusual nature of this annexation which required “special” legal council two years ago”, he did not know the answers to the questions and would have to get back to the committee later with the answers.
So, by the results of not having the answers and the fear of recommending an illegal ETJ (if this was an illegal annexation) the committee tabled their recommendation on Cary’s ETJ request
Then, in a communication by Town Manager Mr. Bill Coleman, two day later, he responded to another persons question about this annexation with this answer: “I would hate to answer the question from a layman's perspective and then have you categorize that in a negative light as you are so prone to do. If you have any questions or concerns about my motivations you are welcome to give me a call and discuss it rather than taking cowardly, e-mail potshots at me from a distance”.
My question is, if he knows the answers, why didn’t he just put them in writing? Wouldn’t written answers speak for themselves? Why does he want a phone call instead of answering the questions in writing? He and Ms. Moran sure have reacted emotionally to questions from the public about this annexation. Why is that?.
In closing, let’s recap this issue. Many town officials have known about the questions for quite some time, yet none can seem to give an answer to the questions about whether or not the annexation was lawful or properly executed. Everyone understands the questions, but when asked, they react in a defensive and evasive way. What’s wrong with this picture? It begs the question, if Cary Town Officials can not easily provide an answer to an action that they recommended only two years earlier, what is wrong then, with this purported annexation.? I, the public, and most importantly the adjoining property owners are still waiting for some answers.
Ron Thoreson
Chairman, StopCary.com
Below is the “In My Opinion” letter that was sent to the Cary News Newspaper. It explains in a detailed time line about the questions which have been brought up regarding Cary’s annexation 2 years ago of Ten Ten Road and West Lake Road. Read it at your leisure to draw you own conclusions.
The bottom line is that the Wake County Land Use Committee would not make a recommendation at its July 14th meeting due to the fact that if this purported annexation two year ago was illegal, then the ETJ requested by them is also illegal. (This means Cary has requested more jurisdictional control over more property than allowed by law IF the annexation two years ago was illegal) The law only allows for a community to gain jurisdictional control (ETJ) over property that is not more than 3 miles from its contiguous border,
Cary believed that by annexing Ten Ten and West Lake Road, it could claim that properties previously satellite annexed in the Middle Creek area would then become “contiguous” due to the fact that Ten Ten connects to the Towns existing town limits. Take away this purported annexation, and the ETJ request is for the area larger than the 3 mile limit. (For the record, this is the largest ETJ request ever in Wake County)
Consider also the fact that no one was notified two years ago about this sneaky annexation, since Cary claims it was just for the roadway. When is the last time you heard a roadway speak out about an action taken by governmental body at a required governmental public hearing? They actually had a public hearing on this. It is recorded that no one spoke…I guess no part of the road could make it to that meeting!. (For the record, Cary called this a voluntary annexation which requires, by law, that they hold a public hearing)
One can only imagine the roadway volunteering to be annexed. Maybe it went something like this. “Uh hey Cary, roadway here. We, the roadway would like to volunteer to be annexed even though you don’t fix the bad part of us in front of you own Fire Hall #6. Yes, we the roadway think you need to be able to connect to other areas you are taking and we though we could help you out by volunteering to be annexed. Yep, by gully, sign us up to be a part of your town and include us in how much property is volunteering to be annexed. That should add some acreage to them there statistics on how many want to be a part of your town. We the roadway are here to volunteer! ”
You be the judge on who is trying to stretch the truth and the laws here. We are quite sure voluntary annexation laws were not meant for roadways!
But wait! The roadway sits on adjoining property owners “easement” property. We believe those property owners should have been notified about the purported annexation of part of their property!. (and it definitely should not have been a “voluntary” annexation) Now serious questions are being raised about it and Cary Town Officials have no answers that they are willing to share during public meetings or in writing. Unfortunately, we the people are probably going to have to challenge this in court.
If Cary continues to stand by this purported annexation, than what this means is that government can violate laws (or interpret them in anyway they wish) and we, the people, from who government is supposed to serve, will probably have to pay an attorney to fight them in court. What is wrong with this picture? Government by the people?…ya right..certainly not in Cary
It kind of reminds me of election time. Seems like Cary “will do anything” to gain control of your property! Stay tuned because this should get real interesting!
Questions about Past Annexation Touches Some Raw Nerves
By Ron Thoreson
The saga of Cary’s aggressive ways continues. At the Wake County Land Use Committee last week, Cary’s request for planning and zoning jurisdiction (ETJ) over parts of Dutchman Downs, Swift Creek and Middle Creek was again tabled because of unanswered questions about Cary’s annexation of Ten Ten Road.
In July of 2002, Cary purportedly annexed just the pavement of parts of State Road Ten Ten and West Lake Road. This purported annexation was so they could make the 376 acres from an earlier satellite annexation contiguous with the rest of the town limits.
Annexation of these parts of roadways would technically link the 376 satellite acres to the rest of Cary. This connection would allow Cary to then annex more land in Middle Creek—land that is closer to Holly Springs--without exceeding the 10% limitation on total acreage in satellite areas that are not contiguous with the rest of the town.
Cary apparently considered the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) to be the owner of the annexed property and only notified the DOT and not the citizens who actually own the underlying land. However, the DOT only has an “easement” over and with the underlying land. An easement is merely a right or privilege that a person (entity) may have in another’s land, as in a right of way. The underlying land is still listed on deeds for the land adjoining State Road 1010 and West Lake Road by use of the legal description on each deed of a parallel boundary “easement” This simply means that each owner’s property runs to the centerline of the road. Since Cary purportedly annexed the land used in the state’s easement for the roadway, each parcel of land is now, if by chance the annexation was legal, in two separate jurisdictions—the part under the road and part of the “easement” that is now in the Town of Cary and the part next to the road “easement” which is still in unincorporated Wake County.
The property owners along Ten Ten Road did not consent to this purported annexation of this piece of their land. State law requires that property owners must be notified if their property is going to be annexed involuntarily. Most do not even know that some of their property has been annexed by the Town of Cary. Given the strong opposition to expansion of the Town of Cary jurisdiction over their neighborhoods, it is highly unlikely that these people would ever agree to the voluntary annexation of their property. (This is what Cary performed, according to its July 11th 2002 minutes--a “voluntary” annexation)
What’s even more troubling is the reaction from Town Staff when this subject is brought up. In January of this year, following a Cary Town Council Planning meeting, I asked Susan Moran (Cary Public Relations Director who was standing beside Mr. Ricky Barker, a town planning official, and Laurie Clowers and her cameraman of WRAL TV) if holding a public hearing, where only the pavement of the roadway could speak for or against its own annexation as a directly affected party, was intended to facilitate the Town of Cary in: A) just annexing the road, only; or B) using it’s sign ordinance against the critics of Cary who were exercising their freedom of speech. I was concerned because StopCary signs were being removed from this area and I suspect the Cary sign police may have been doing so.
Ms Moran’s reply (which so shocked me that I wrote a formal complaint to the Town of Cary about it) was “If you don’t like what we did why don’t you just run for State Office so you can change it and quit being such a bother to us!!” She never did answer the questions.
Getting no answers from Ms. Moran prompted me to again ask, at the June 9th Land Use Committee, whether or not Cary’s annexation of these roads was a legal annexation. You see, this is very important because without this road annexation, Cary’s request for extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) over this area will not comply with state requirements. As an answer to my question here, I was told by the Committee chairperson that the questions would be looked into and an answer would be forthcoming at the next meeting held on July 14th
A few days later, I asked Mr. Tim Clarke, the Wake County planner in charge of this ETJ process, some questions about this annexation He just responded that other towns use railroad right of ways to do things like Cary did when it ran a water line along 1010 prior to annexing this roadway. (Cary added a water line before annexing the property, but that is another story) He had no answer to the question of “was this a legal annexation?”
So, two weeks ago, (five days before the July 14th Land Use Committee meeting,) I sent an e-mail to all the necessary Cary Town Officials asking the same type questions. I have yet to receive one response from the Ten Cary Officials I sent the questions to..
Next, during the July 14th Land Use Committee meeting, Mr. Ulma made a lengthy presentation about the ETJ area and answered questions from the prior meeting. Only he failed to address the annexation of Ten Ten Road. When I finally had my turn to speak up about this question, I inquired as to why he did not have an answer to this important matter. He stood up again and explained that “due to the unusual nature of this annexation which required “special” legal council two years ago”, he did not know the answers to the questions and would have to get back to the committee later with the answers.
So, by the results of not having the answers and the fear of recommending an illegal ETJ (if this was an illegal annexation) the committee tabled their recommendation on Cary’s ETJ request
Then, in a communication by Town Manager Mr. Bill Coleman, two day later, he responded to another persons question about this annexation with this answer: “I would hate to answer the question from a layman's perspective and then have you categorize that in a negative light as you are so prone to do. If you have any questions or concerns about my motivations you are welcome to give me a call and discuss it rather than taking cowardly, e-mail potshots at me from a distance”.
My question is, if he knows the answers, why didn’t he just put them in writing? Wouldn’t written answers speak for themselves? Why does he want a phone call instead of answering the questions in writing? He and Ms. Moran sure have reacted emotionally to questions from the public about this annexation. Why is that?.
In closing, let’s recap this issue. Many town officials have known about the questions for quite some time, yet none can seem to give an answer to the questions about whether or not the annexation was lawful or properly executed. Everyone understands the questions, but when asked, they react in a defensive and evasive way. What’s wrong with this picture? It begs the question, if Cary Town Officials can not easily provide an answer to an action that they recommended only two years earlier, what is wrong then, with this purported annexation.? I, the public, and most importantly the adjoining property owners are still waiting for some answers.
Ron Thoreson
Chairman, StopCary.com