Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10-09-2012 APPROVED 12/3/2012 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION October 9, 2012 7:OOpm The Orange County Board of Commissioners for a Work Session on Tuesday, October 9, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the Link Government Services Center in Hillsborough, NC. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier, Commissioners Alice M. Gordon, Pam Hemminger, and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Valerie Foushee, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Managers Gwen Harvey, Clarence Grier, Michael Talbert, and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All other staff inembers will be identified appropriately below) Chair Pelissier called the meeting to order at 7:07 PM. She said that Commissioner Foushee is out of town and Commissioner Jacobs had an emergency to take care of. Commissioner McKee was also absent. 1. Community Givinq Fund for Oranqe County The Board was updated on a staff initiative to create a Community Giving Fund to raise and receive donations intended to support, enhance, and extend County services and County- supported activities. Animal Services Director Bob Marotto reviewed this item. He said that this is a team project. The goal is to create a countywide giving vehicle as opposed to a special vehicle for each department or service. There has been discussion about combining efforts. Also, people would be able to earmark their funds for certain activities and then track the funds. He said that there are eight departments actively receiving donations and there is only one department that is encouraging online donations. There is a substantial amount of giving of funds, goods, and volunteer time. He thinks that there are many more possibilities of giving through this collaborative effort. He said that recently, the Orange County Animal Shelter received a living trust of an estate. This fund would create a framework for receiving and holding substantial donations, cash, stocks, bonds, or real property. Public Affairs Officer Carla Banks said that it would be a good idea to have professionally produced brochures or folders for this fund to give it more credibility. These could be designed in-house, which would save money. Health Director Colleen Bridger reviewed the implementation options. The first option is to do it in-house. There is no way to do it for less than $100,000 a year. The County only takes in about $100,000, so this would not be a net gain. There are foundations that do this for minimal cost. She found the Triangle Community Foundation to be a good fit for Orange County. There is a 1% administration fee, which would never equal $100,000. This would free up the staff to focus on spreading the word about the fund. Frank Clifton said that if the Board feels comfortable then the staff could bring forward a contract for this. Commissioner Hemminger said that this is a great idea. She likes that individuals can earmark funds to specific departments. She warned the staff to make sure that people know that funds will not be used for operating expenses. She said that naming rights should also be addressed. Commissioner Gordon said that she was sold until she started reading about legal control. She read: "distinct from the accounting rules above, a nonprofit transfer of assets to an Agency Fund at TCF also transfers legal ownership and fiduciary responsibility of the assets. As a result, all distributions from Agency Funds are subject to approval by TCF's Board of Directors. Approval is routinely granted from non-endowed funds and from the accrued Spendable of endowed funds." She said that she needs to know more about this because she does not see how county funds can be subjected to control by anyone else. She asked if it was done by not having endowed funds and Colleen Bridger said that this is how it is done. Commissioner Gordon asked how the County could get out of the contract if needed. Frank Clifton said that it could be written into the contract. Commissioner Yuhasz asked how this would impact the volunteer activities. He does not want to have this seen as the only way to contribute to Orange County. Frank Clifton said that this would mainly be for assets, cash, etc. Commissioner Gordon clarified that there will be a contract that excludes endowed agency funds, there will be a way to get out of the contract, and that it is Orange County funds managed by TCF. The Board agreed. 2. Review of Kennel Requlations The Board reviewed existing permitting and land use development regulations governing the development of Kennels, Class I and Class II within Orange County. Michael Harvey said that the purpose of this meeting is to discuss the regulations on development of Class I and Class II kennels. In January of this year, the Board reapproved an ordinance amendment splitting out riding stables and kennels. There were also modified definitions to be consistent and to avoid confusion. The issue that arose in this process was with the Class B special use permit. He made reference to page 2 of the packet and the permitting processes for various kennels. Several questions have been posed to staff and pages three and four have responses to these questions. There have been concerns about whether this use should be allowed in the rural buffer zoning district and whether or not it should be allowed through the Class B Special Use Permit process. The staff believes it is acceptable to allow this use in the rural buffer as long as it goes through the SUP process. He said that Class A and B processes are virtually identical. Staff believes that the processes are adequate and appropriate. There were some questions about whether there needs to be specific development standards for Class I kennels and staff agrees with this. With a Class II kennel, there are 150-foot setbacks. Class I could have additional setbacks. There were some Planning Board members that mentioned that they were concerned that there were no development standards governing the actual physical development of the building itself. He said that zoning looks at land use issues and there is a partnership with Animal Services to make sure that land use issues are addressed. There are conditions in place that the use will not have an adverse affect on the surrounding area. Frank Clifton said that one of the concerns is the possibility of rescue operations. Class I and Class II does not allow someone to sell dogs. He asked where the line gets drawn if a dog has a litter of puppies. He said that this creates an issue that will be difficult to enforce and he offered a word of caution regarding this. Commissioner Yuhasz said that it seems that the Planning staff does not see a need to make changes. Michael Harvey said that the Planning staff focused on process issues. He thinks that there is an opportunity to develop standards for the Class I kennel and development of mandatory buffers, etc. He said that there are complexities with Class I and Class II facilities. He thinks that it would be appropriate to provide a differentiation between rescue facilities and kennels. He asked for direction from the Board. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to direct frontage on a state-maintained roadway and said that the development regulations essentially prohibit the creation of new lots that have frontage on existing state-maintained roads. He said that putting this kind of restriction into the ordinance may make it difficult moving forward. This is one of his concerns. The problem has been that there have been some kennels approved over the objection of neighbors. He does not know what to do to make this problem better. Commissioner Gordon said that the reason this came up as a concern is that this use was seen as a commercial use in a residential area. She said that there should be standards for Class I kennels at a minimum for 6-20 animals. She said that the neighbors are already there and this would be bringing in something new and disturbing the peace in some way. Her view is that there need to be higher standards. Commissioner Hemminger asked about the penalty. Michael Harvey said that a violation of the code is up to $500 a day. She thinks that if someone is breeding dogs, there needs to be a permit. Frank Clifton said that one of the problems will be those that hunt rabbits and raise beagles. It is not uncommon for these people to have 15-20 dogs at one time, but they are not selling them. Commissioner Hemminger said that she would like to tighten up the Class II guidelines. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he does not understand why Class II kennels are allowed in a rural area if they are viewed as a commercial activity. Chair Pelissier said that if there is a large operation, there should be something about noise because that seems to be the biggest concern. Michael Harvey said that one of the reasons that noise is not in this ordinance is because there are noise regulations in the animal control ordinance. This is enforced by the Sheriff's department. Animal Services Director Bob Marotto said that they need to focus on non-compliance with other ordinances with the result being revocation of the kennel permit. There are ways to tighten up the ordinance. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he does not want more things for the County Commissioners to decide. Chair Pelissier agreed. She does not want this to be a Class A Special Use Permit. Bob Marotto said that there are a handful of kennels that are a chronic problem and there has been litigation with two of them. There are currently 12 Class II permits, two pending Class II permits, and two Class I permits. Of that group, probably two or three have been the subject of continuing complaints and concerns. Commissioner Yuhasz asked about the nature of those complaints. Bob Marotto said that the complaints are usually numbers, housing, noise, whether or not the animals are confined securely, living conditions, etc. The renewals of the permits depend upon the inspection and the standards and any violation of the standards is grounds to not renew the permit. Chair Pelissier said that she is hearing that the majority of the County Commissioners do not want to do Class A Special Use Permits for this and the staff should come back with more parameters for rural buffer, lot size, etc. Frank Clifton said that one of the things not included here is the regulation of puppy mills. This is something that should be considered as a separate issue. Commissioner Gordon said that she would like to hear the Planning Board's take on this, both for Class I and Class II. Discussion ensued about the timeline and it was answered that the May or August 2013 QPH would be reasonable to bring the final ordinance. Chair Pelissier made reference to the Class II kennel and said that the keeping of more than five animals seems stringent. She would like some discussion about this. Michael Harvey said that he would need to work with Bob Marotto on the numbers to ensure that they are consistent between the ordinances. Commissioner Yuhasz said that before the County Commissioners make a commitment to bring something to a public hearing, he thinks that the Planning Board should discuss this. He would like to hear this discussion before making a decision to bring something to a public hearing. The Board agreed. 3. Specific Policies for Board of County Commissioner Advisory Boards The Board reviewed the final drafts of the board-specific policies for six advisory boards. Chair Pelissier said that the non-substantive comments could be submitted to the County Attorney. John Roberts said that this was initially submitted in April or May. There were many comments, but one of the comments that everyone agreed on was that the specific policies need to be shorter and only need to reflect differences that are absolutely necessary. He let the departments know that and the departments made the changes. These policies generally reflect goals and purposes of each individual board, membership on the board, and when the meetings will be. OUT Board Darcy Zorio, staff support for the OUT Board, came forward. Commissioner Gordon asked how the policies were configured. John Roberts said that each of the policies is in the same format, but each one will look different because of the differences in each board. Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 2, #2 in the OUT Board policy and said that it should say, "in such instances, the OUT Board shall send its recommendations to the Planning Board." She asked what duty the OUT Board has to the Board of County Commissioners. Darcy Zorio said that the recommendations go directly to the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Gordon said that, in that case, it should say, "the OUT Board shall send its recommendations to the Planning Board, with a copy to the County Commissioners." Commissioner Gordon made reference to the Goals and Objectives, #3, the first objective, and requested that it say, "identify and provide prioritization recommendations on the County's roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian needs." John Roberts asked if the Board agreed with this change. Commissioner Hemminger said that she would like the recommendations broken out into two pieces — Planning Board and County Commissioners. Commissioner Yuhasz said that if the County Commissioners have requested that the OUT Board advise the Planning Board, then that recommendation goes to the Planning Board and whatever comes up from the Planning Board will include what the OUT Board recommended. He does not think that the County Commissioners need to get a separate recommendation. Chair Pelissier said that if the County Commissioners asked for it, then it will see it through the Planning Board. She thinks that this will be taken care of. The Board agreed with adding "bicycle and pedestrian" to the first item under Goals and Objectives. Commissioner Gordon made reference to #6, "serve as an advisory body to the Administrative Staff of the Orange Public Transit system." She said that it is strange to have an advisory board of the County Commissioners be an advisor to the staff. Chair Pelissier said that it was agreed that it would be folded into the OUT Board, which would serve as advice to the staff because they were dealing with transportation. Darcy Zorio said that NCDOT requires that Orange Public Transportation have a transportation advisory board as a recipient of subgrades. DOT also requires that the transportation advisory board have specific membership. At this time, the board does not address the issues required by the state statutes. She said that the OUT Board needs to keep its goals and objectives "clean" and satisfy the DOT requirements. There are some membership issues on the TAB that might not be pertinent to the OUT Board. Chair Pelissier made reference to page 4 where it says that there would be three members from the advisory boards having transportation interests — Commission for the Environment, Economic Development Commission, and Planning Board. She said that her concern is that when there are these requirements it means that people have to be on two boards. She is hearing that this is problematic and that it does not work very well. She knows that there should be communication between two different boards, but maybe the staff people can summarize pertinent issues. She questioned having this as a stipulation of inembership. Commissioner Gordon said that the Commission for the Environment might have an interest, but she is not sure about the Economic Development Commission. There is an overlap between planning and transportation. Chair Pelissier suggested not requiring this, but maybe having someone with specific interests or expertise on the OUT Board. Commissioner Gordon suggested asking the boards how they felt about it. Frank Clifton said that the commonality with all of these boards is that the County staff supports them all. Commissioner Yuhasz suggested saying, "six at-large members with expertise or specific interests in the environment, economic development, planning, bicycle transportation, pedestrian access and safety, and public transit." After discussion, the Board decided to remove item B-4 regarding the staggered terms. Aqricultural Preservation Rich Shaw is staff support for this board. He said that Objective B-2 should be divided up and bulleted. John Roberts made reference to Section IV, B, #4 and said to delete this statement about quorum. Animal Services John Roberts said that the current date and time was included, but it somehow got deleted from this one. He suggested that the current meeting dates and times should be included. Bob Marotto said that this board meets the third Wednesday of every other month from 6:30-8:30 p.m. It was suggested to change "Townships" to "Towns" in section III, B, 2-a. Visitors Bureau Laurie Paolacelli said that this board meets the third Wednesday of every month. Since she has been here, there has always been a quorum. There is representation from the towns, the hospitality industry, the Chamber, Orange County Economic Development, restaurants, and the high school athletic association. She said that there has been a swell in related positions encouraging tourism. The board has added someone with institutional memory as an ex-officio capacity and Lee Pavao is sitting in this position. Commissioner Hemminger suggested putting the number of inembers in the "composition" section. There are three ex-officios and 14 members. Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 13, A-2, and she read, "The Orange County Board of Commissioners may appoint an advisory board whose duty is to serve in an advisory capacity to the Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitors Bureau Board." She said that it should say, "whose duty is to provide advice on visitors' services in Orange County." Commissioner Gordon made reference to the Charge and halfway down the paragraph and said that it should read, "the board's purpose is to serve in an advisory capacity to the Orange County Board of Commissioners" and not "government." Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 14, B-1 and suggested saying "surrounding areas" instead of"surrounding Efland." Commissioner Gordon made corrections to "Representation" and said that it is Town of Hillsborough Commissioners and Town of Carrboro Board of Aldermen. Also, EDC Board- Orange County should read, "Economic Development Commission." It should also say this for the Town of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Chair Pelissier suggested that these changes be submitted to John Roberts in writing because they are not substantive. Planninq Board Chair Pelissier said that she wanted to put a placeholder for the future and coming up with applications for certain boards that were a little more detailed. These applications could have some specific questions for the applicants related to the boards. Commission for the Environment Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 21 and suggested adding language between 5 and 6 such as "provide recommendations and input on the Lands Legacy Program," and the Board agreed, Commissioner Gordon suggested taking out the fields at the bottom of page 21 because this is not done. She does not see a need to put this in. Chair Pelissier said that she likes the listing of expertise. Discussion ensued about having these areas remain. The majority of the Board agreed to leave these areas as is. Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 22, #4 and said that this is in the general policy. Rich Shaw said that 2-4 were in the general provisions and he was going to recommend that these be removed. Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 23, Meeting Notice, and said that it should say, "staff of the Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks, and Recreation shall give a minimum of five days notice for both regular and special meetings." She said that DEAPR should be spelled out. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to adjourn the meeting at 9:28 p.m. Bernadette Pelissier, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC