Washington’s City Council, during its meeting Monday, is scheduled to discuss the possibility of the city reducing the size of its extraterritorial jurisdiction in some areas.

The extraterritorial jurisdiction is a zoning overlay that allows a municipality to impose its zoning regulations outside its corporate limits to help it prepare for future growth. It’s also the legal ability of a government to exercise its authority beyond its normal boundaries.

Because of special legislation approved by the N.C. General Assembly, Washington’s ETJ is allowed to extend 1.5 miles outside the city limits. State law allows a large municipality’s ETJ to extend up to three miles outside, or one mile for smaller municipalities.

“Staff has been asked to investigate the procedure for possible reduction of the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) in the Washington area as requested. … The adjustment will more accurately reflect the potential for future growth patterns and utility service areas of the City of Washington,” reads a memorandum from John Rodman, director of the city’s Planning and Development Department, to the mayor and City Council.

Councilman Bobby Roberson supports reducing the city’s ETJ, basically because it probably would save the city money.

“I definitely think we need to look at reducing the area based on the new legislative changes (regarding annexation),” Roberson said in an interview in March.

Roberson, a former city planning director, said understands why municipalities are allowed to put an ETJ in place and why some residents and property owners in an ETJ have concerns about being annexed, eventually, by a municipality.

“Because the annexation laws have changed, one of the primary purposes of the ETJ … was to govern those areas in close proximity to the city because once you annexed them it had to have a lot of cash up front to make those improvements to the are you were actually bringing in,” Roberson said. “Subsequently, what cities were saying was that if we had some land-use controls, particularly when it came to streets and water and sewer and curb and gutter and those kinds of amenities that normally are the responsibility of a municipality, if they were in the ETJ, then the transition from outside to inside the city wouldn’t be that costly for cities. In addition to that, they (property owners and residents in the ETJ) would have representation on a planning board.”

In an interview last month, Rodman explained why the city is re-evaluating its ETJ policy.

“Some of the reasons we started looking at it is because some of the annexation laws have changed in the state of North Carolina,” Rodman said during an interview in March. “What an ETJ does, and what you presume it’s going to do, is that sooner or later that portion of property that’s in your ETJ at some point in time is going to become part of the city. That’s the premise behind it all. Now that the annexation laws have become a lot tougher, the likelihood of us annexing any of that property in the future is probably very slim. With that in mind, the city would like to start cutting down on some of its response area and concentrate in areas that may need our time a little more. So, we’re trying to cut down on some of our service area.”

The three areas proposed to be removed from the city’s ETJ include an area south of the Pamlico River what includes Whichard’s Beach Road, an area on U.S. Highway 17 north of the city near the Hunter’s Pointe Sporting Clays complex and an area that’s mostly farmland along Cherry Road between Market Street Extension and Slatestone Road.

“As far as involuntary annexation, it really takes those areas off the table,” Rodman said.

Some areas where growth is expected will remain in the ETJ, he noted.

“Our major growth areas are probably going to be out (U.S. Highway) 264 west and 264 east, so we hadn’t bothered to look at that (for removal from the ETJ) because we think that’s going to have some growth and we want to be able to make sure that growth is appropriate,” Rodman said.

For the city to reduce its ETJ, the city’s Planning Board is required to conduct a public hearing on the matter, the City Council is required to conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution concerning the intent to reduce the ETJ and set a date for the city’s offer to relinquish some areas of its ETJ, according to Rodman’s memorandum.

The city’s Planning Board is scheduled to conduct a public hearing on the issue at its April 24 meeting.

Washington’s Planning Board includes people who live in the city’s ETJ but not inside the city limits.