HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-01-1996 - VIII-E 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 1. 1996
Action Agenda
Item# �'-E
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT
Article 23. Violations, Penalties, and Remedies,
23.2 Penalties, a) Criminal Action
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: Yes_X_No
BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: Yes_X—No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jim Hinkley X2583
Proposed Amendment
Public Hearing Minutes TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
,Planning Board Minutes
Hillsborough -732-8181
Durham -688-7331
Mebane -227-2031
Chapel Hill -968-4501
PURPOSE: To consider a proposed Zoning Text Amendment which would increase
maximum fines resulting from criminal action in the courts from$50 to
$500 as authorized by North Carolina General Statute§14-4.
BACKGROUND: The Orange County Zoning Ordinance provides for action which may be
taken by the County to abate zoning violations or non-compliance with
zoning requirements. Taking criminal action in the courts is not often
used,but when it is,it is important that this remedy be effective.
Although not specifically stated in Section 23.2,the maximum fine is fifty
dollars ($50.00). The maximum $50-fine upon conviction limits the
effectiveness of the criminal action remedy.
The proposed amendment would enable Orange County to increase the
maximum fine to $500.00, as authorized by N.C. General Statute §14-4.
2
The proposed amendment was presented at public hearing on February 26,
1996. No citizen comments were received. The proposed amendment was
referred to the Planning Board for recommendation to be returned to the
Board of Commissioners no sooner than April 1, 1996.
The Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the
zoning text amendment at it meeting on March 18, 1996. Minutes of that
meeting are attached.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the zoning text
amendment.
1 3
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE: ZONING
REFERENCE: ARTICLE 23. Violation, Penalties, and Remedies
Section 23.2 Penalties
a) Criminal Action
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board
X BOCC Public
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: _X_High Middle Low
PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON: February 26, 1996
PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To raise the maximum fine for criminal violation of the
Zoning Ordinance from$50. to $500.
IMPACTSASSUES: The Orange County Zoning Ordinance provides for four types of action
.,, which may be taken by the County to abate zoning violations or non-
, compliance with zoning requirements. These are:
a) Criminal Action
b) Civil Penalty Assessment
C) Injunction and Abatement
d) Stop Work Order
Assessing Civil Penalties and Posting Stop Work Orders are the most
commonly used remedies to correct violations after working with property
owners to no avail. Taking criminal action in the courts is not often used,
but when it is, it is important that the remedy be effective. The present
maximum$50.00 fine upon conviction limits the effectiveness of the
criminal remedy.
Orange County has the authority to increase the maximum fine to $500.00
by so providing in its Zoning Ordinance.
Existing Provision for Criminal Action in the Orange County_Zoning
Ordinance
Article 23. Violations. Penalties and Remedies of the Orange County
Zoning Ordinance is quoted in the following:
4
4
23.2 Penal—tie
a) Criminal Action:
Any person,firm or corporation who violates the provisions of this
Ordinance or fails to comply with any of its requirements shall, upon
conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished as provided
in G.S. 14-4.
Although not specifically stated, Section 23.2 limits the amount of
maximum fine to fifty dollars ($50.00), by default.
Chapter 14 of the North Carolina General Statutes provides:
§14-4. Violation oflocal ordinances misdemeanor. (Underlining added
for emphasis)
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), if any person shall violate an
ordinane'e of a county, city, town or metropolitan sewerage district
created under Article 5 of Chapter 162A, he shall be guilty ofa Class 3
misdemeanor and shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars
($500.00). No,fine shall exceed f ftv dollars ($50.00) unless the ordinance
expressly states that the maximum fine is greater than fi dollars
($5000).
Proposed Amendment
23.2 Penalties
a) Criminal Action:
Any person, firm or corporation who violates the provisions of this
Ordinance or fails to comply with any of its requirements shall, upon
conviction, be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor and shall be puaishe f- ned
not more than a maximum of five hundred dollars ($500.00), as provided
in G.S. Section 14-4.
5
1 Special Use provisions related to expiration, validity, and approval actions for Special Use
2 Permits.
3
4 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5
6 Commissioner Gordon asked if it was necessary to have both a septic area and a repair
7 area if an easement existed.
8
9 Geoff Gledhill indicated that whether a septic area and repair area were required
10 depended on when the septic system was installed. That decision is the responsibility of the
11 Health Department.
12
13 Mary Willis noted that this amendment did not change the currently established
14 landowners requirement to meet the five findings necessary for variance approval.
15
16 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD AND OR CITIZENS
17
18 None.
19
20 A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Wtllhoi , to
21 refer both of these amendments to the Planning Board for recommendations to be returned no
22 sooner than April 1, 1996.
23 VOTE: NANIMOUS a
24
25 (c) Article 23. Violations, Penalties,and Remedies, 23.2 Penalties, a)
26 Crimina Action
27 This item was presented by Planner Jim Hinkley for the purpose of
28 receiving citizen comment on a Zoning Text Amendment. The Orange County Zoning
29 Ordinance provides for action which may be taken by the County to abate zoning violations or
30 non-compliance with zoning requirements. Taking criminal action in the courts is not often
31 used, but when 4 is, 4 is important that this remedy be effective. Although not specifically stated
32 in Section 23.2, the maximum fine is fifty dollars ($50.00). The maximum $50.00-fine upon
33 conviction limits the effectiveness of the criminal action remedy. The proposed amendment
34 would enable Orange County to increase the maximum fine to$500.00, as authorized by N.C.
35 General Statutes 14-4.
36
37 QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING
38 BOARD AND CITIZENS
39
40 None.
41
42 A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis. seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to
43 refer the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text amendment to the Planning Board for a
44 recommendation to be returned no sooner than April 1, 1996.
45 VOTE. UNANIMOUS
5
f
6
DRAFT approval to go ahead,but it lets the applicant know that something must done
before the end of the twelve month period.
It was noted that this is a common condition placed on every Special Use Permit.
This amendment would place the standard in the ordinance so that it would not
have to be placed on each permit as a condition.
Reid expressed concern with what would be considered"commencing". Collins
responded that there must be evidence that work has begun and proceding in a
reasonable period. Construction must begin within that twelve month period.
Reid continued expressing concern that it should be very clear and he felt that too
much is left open to interpretation.
Jobsis stated that the question from many of the Board members indicated the
lack of a clear definition of "commenced"and"proceeded".
Barrows expressed concern with the issue of burden of proof addressed in the
County Attorney's letter. She felt specific information should be provided for
citizens who are in opposition to some special use. They need to know how to
prepare and present their opposition and evidence at the public hearing.
Katz expressed concern that 8.2.2 b which refers specifically to value of
contiguous property is being deleted. He felt this creates confusion and should
also be better clarified by the County Attorney. a
Jobsis recommended that all of these issues be forwarded to the County Attorney
for clarification.
MOTION: Katz moved that this proposed amendment be tabled until such time as the County
Attorney can be present to provide more information and clarity of the issues that
have been voiced by Planning Board members in this discussion. Seconded by
Allison.
VOTE: Unanimous.
(3) Article 23 Violations,Penalties,&Remedies
Presentation by Jim Hinkley.
The Orange County Zoning Ordinance provides for action which may be taken by
the County to abate zoning violations or non-compliance with zoning
requirements. Taking criminal action in the courts is not often used,but when it
is,it is important that this remedy be effective. Although not specifically stated in
Section 23.2,the maximum fine is fifty dollar($50.00). The maximum$50-fine
upon conviction limits the effectiveness of the criminal action remedy.
The proposed amendment would enable Orange County to increase the maximum
fine to$500.00,as authorized by NC General Statute 144.
The proposed amendment was presented at public hearing on February 26, 1996.
No citizen comments were received. The proposed amendment was referred to the
Planning Board for recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners
no sooner than April 1, 1996.
7
c
The Zoning Officer recommends approval of the proposed text amendment to
Article 23. Violations,Penalties,and Remedies, Section 23.2 Penalties,
DRAFT
a)Criminal Action.
In response to a question about an example of a court case, Hinkley referred to a
case from January, 1996. The County won the case;however,the fine was$50.00
and the court costs were$62.00. The following month,the citizen was again in
violation. Discussion indicated that the fine was so minimal that it apparently did
not really concern the violator. Hinkley continued that the Judge had suggested to
him that it be recommended to the County Commissioners to raise the penalty to
$500.00 as allowed by the General Statutes.
Katz asked how often the County has been involved in criminal action such as
this. Hinkley responded that there have been three or four criminal cases in the
last six years.
MOTION: Waddell moved approval as recommended by the Zoning Officer. Seconded by
Allison.
VOTE: Unanimous.
d. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments
(1) Recreation/Dedication Payment-In-Lieu Provisions
Presentation by Marvin Collins.
(A copy of the agenda abstract information is an attachment to these minutes on
pages )
Collins stated that,based on the findings in the paryment-in-lieu report, there
were several options available to the Planning Board and the Board of
Commissioners at the February public hearing.
One option was to recommend a payment-in-lieu based on the service area
approach. The payment-in-lieu would be$422 per lot for a subdivision located in
the service area of a community park and$455 per lot for a subdivision located in
the service area of a district park. Another option was the county-wide approach
which would be$271 per lot for each subdivision. Another option would be to
leave the payment-in-lieu as it is and update the Master Parks and Recreation Plan.
Following the update,a payment-in-lieu could be calculated based on the new
plan. There is also a recommendation that the dedication provision be reduced
from 1/35th of an acre to 1/57th of an acre for each lot in a subdivision.
Collins referred to a memorandum from the Recreation&Parks Advisory Council
which indicates that a majority of the Council supports a service area approach (a
copy an attachment to these minutes on page ). One member opposed the
proposal because he felt the Master Parks and Recreation Plan should be updated
before any action is taken on the proposed amendments. However,the members
did agree that the Plan should be revisited and priorities set on future plans.
Collins continued that Commissioner Crowther requested,(at the public hearing,)
that updating the Master Parks&Recreation Plan be considered as a part of the
Commissioners'goals and objectives for fiscal year 96-97. Collins noted that a