Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11-05-2015 APPROVED 12/7/2015 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING NOVMEBER 5, 2015 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair McKee and Commissioners Mia Burroughs, Mark Dorosin, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Jacobs COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. Chair McKee said that Commissioner Jacobs would be unable to attend tonight. 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda - White sheet—Additional information for item 5-a: North Carolina Community Transportation Program Administrative and Capital Grant Applications FY 2017 - Pink sheet— Revised Abstract for item 5-b: Zoning Atlas Amendment - Jacobs Glass Rezoning - Closure of Public Hearing and Action (No Additional Comments Accepted) - White sheets — PowerPoint for Item 5-e: Public Hearing Process PUBLIC CHARGE Chair McKee dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda Maxecine Mitchell said she received a notice today from Animal Control stating she was being cruel to her dogs as they were outside and the water container had some leaves in the dish. She said she lives in the County with a lot of oak trees and she is upset for being cited for not having a clean water container. She said she is a volunteer on the Planning Board, which is a body that strives to create logical ordinances, and she is not sure why she was cited. She said her doghouses are dry and clean but one of them is broken, for which she was cited as well. She said she was additionally cited for not having the doghouses raised above the ground but noted the doghouses are tremendously heavy. She said she is single and unemployed but her dogs are healthy and live better than she does. She said she talked with Bob Marotto, the Director of Animal Services, and he told her they would come out to talk with her. She hoped a solution could be reached. Chair McKee asked Bonnie Hammersley to consult with Animal Control. Susanna Birdsong said she is here as Policy Counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of North Carolina, and she is here to talk about House Bill (HB) 318. She said this law is making our State unfriendly. She reviewed the following: Analysis of HB 318--"Sanctuary Cities" Provisions North Carolina Justice Center October 30, 2015 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS Our review of"sanctuary cities" provisions contained in House Bill 318 leads to the following conclusions, as detailed further in the analysis that follows: ❑ HB 318 applies to municipal police departments, but not sheriffs. ❑ HB 318 does not require a city to affirmatively adopt any policy involving its agents in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. ❑ HB 318 does not expand or change the limited authority of local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws. ❑ HB 318 does not allow a warrantless arrest of an individual based only on a suspicion or confirmation that the individual is in the United States without federal authorization. ❑ HB 318 does not allow detaining an individual for any period of time based on mere suspicion or confirmation that the individual is in the United States without federal authorization. ❑ HB 318 does not allow detaining or extending the detention of an individual solely to verify the individual's immigration status. ❑ HB 318 does not allow the prolonging of an otherwise lawful stop for purposes of conducting an immigration inquiry. ❑ HB 318 does not require law enforcement to gather information about citizenship status or immigration status. ❑ HB 318 does not allow law enforcement to engage in racial profiling. I. INTRODUCTION The other part of the law references the sanctuary law and she said the law does not apply to any laws adopted by sheriffs and their employees. House Bill 318 purports to prohibit adoption of sanctuary city ordinances. The pertinent part of the legislation reads as follows: SECTION 15.(a) Article 6 of Chapter 153A of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read: "§ 153A-145.5. Adoption of sanctuary ordinance prohibited. (a) No county may have in effect any policy, ordinance, or procedure that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. (b) No county shall do any of the following related to information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual: (1) Prohibit law enforcement officials or agencies from gathering such information. (2) Direct law enforcement officials or agencies not to gather such information. (3) Prohibit the communication of such information to federal law enforcement agencies." SECTION 15.(b) Article 8 of Chapter 160A of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read: "§ 160A-499.4. Adoption of sanctuary ordinances prohibited. (a) No city may have in effect any policy, ordinance, or procedure that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. (b) No city shall do any of the following related to information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual: (1) Prohibit law enforcement officials or agencies from gathering such information. (2) Direct law enforcement officials or agencies not to gather such information. (3) Prohibit the communication of such information to federal law enforcement agencies." She said there is confusion regarding the application of the law, and who is intended to be included as a "government official". She said this term is not defined anywhere in the law. She said the ACLU is urging that the scope of this bill be limited or it may lead to a deprivation of fundamental rights. She said there is appropriate concern within immigrant communities regarding this law. Susanna Birdsong said HB 318 affects no Orange County Sheriff's policies or resolutions, adopted by the Commission to date. Commissioner Rich asked if there is some action she wanted the Board to take. Susanna Birdsong said to the extent to which the Board is asked to define government official, or set parameters, she asked that the Board do so very narrowly. Commissioner Rich asked if the information could be passed along to the Clerk to share with the Board. Commissioner Dorosin said he would be interested in getting more information, and bringing a resolution forward echoing the sentiments of Susanna Birdsong's comments. He said he would be willing to take on the authorship of such a resolution. Commissioner Rich said that was her intention in asking the information to be shared with the Board. She said it is important to state the Board's position on such matters. Roger Leguillow said he is here to re-awaken the discussion of allowing food trucks within the area. He said food trucks are very popular locally for urban commercial areas. He said trucks are being allowed in the municipalities in Orange County, and it would be good to be ahead of the curve and to address this in a controlled manner. b. Matters on the Printed Agenda NONE 3. Announcements and Petitions by Board Members Commissioner Price said thank you to InterFaith Council (IFC) for their annual open house, where the residents put on a welcoming event. Commissioner Burroughs said the ABC Board had made good progress on the living wage and may be implementing this as early as January 2016. Commissioner Burroughs said the Board of Health is very seriously considering services for men. Commissioner Dorosin said there is a group of dedicated residents working on the living wage issue. He said this group goes out and educates the work sector to the extent that Orange County was recently certified as "providing the living wage". He said this work is being funded independently and asked if there is anything Orange County can do to help support them financially or with in kind support. He said this group is having a fund raising event on Friday, November 6th from 5-7 p.m. Commissioner Dorosin said the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom is celebrating their 80th anniversary. Commissioner Pelissier said there was a presentation on Energy Positive Schools at the North Carolina Association for County Commissioners (NCACC) Environmental Steering Committee, and asked the Manager to investigate these types of schools in light of the upcoming bond funding for schools. Commissioner Rich referenced the living wage group mentioned by Commissioner Dorosin, and she encouraged them to apply for a grant during the budget season as well. Commissioner Rich said she is a living wage certified business. Commissioner Rich said the National Association of Counties (NACo) Technology Committee had a meeting today, and they are talking to a lobbyist about cyber security. Commissioner Rich said last night there was a great presentation on organic composting at the SWAG meeting, and the Clerk has distributed this presentation to all Board of County Commissioners members. Chair McKee said the Assemblies of Governments (AOG) Meeting has been cancelled. He said the Town of Hillsborough has a public hearing that night, and he consulted with both the Chapel Hill and Carrboro Mayors who suggested the meeting be postponed until a future date. 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations NONE 5. Public Hearings a. North Carolina Community Transportation Program Administrative and Capital Grant Applications FY 2017 The Board continued and considered closing the annual public hearing on the North Carolina Community Transportation Program (CTP) grant application by Orange Public Transportation (OPT) for FY 2017 and approving the grant application which includes adopting a resolution authorizing the Chair to sign an agreement with the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). Peter Murphy, Orange County Transportation Administrator, reviewed the following information: BACKGROUND: At the October 20, 2015 meeting, the Board of Commissioners opened the annual public hearing and continued the hearing to allow receipt of written comments by November 2, 2015 as indicated in the public hearing notice. As presented, each year the NCDOT Public Transportation Division accepts requests for administrative and capital needs for county- operated community transportation programs. OPT is eligible to make application for both administrative and capital funding. The current year FY 2016-approved application includes $166,765 in administrative funding and $232,286 in capital funding for replacement vehicles with total expenses equaling $399,051. The total CTP funding request for FY 2017 is $166,765 for community transportation administrative expenses and an additional $316,782 for capital expenses. This draft grant application is made for expenses totaling $483,547. Grant funds for administrative purposes will continue to be used to support overall transit systems management and operations and will continue to promote general ridership. Grant funds for capital items include the replacement of three (3) buses exceeding their useful life mileage thresholds in OPT's fleet. A public hearing (Attachment 3) is requested with the opportunity for public discussion and comment before the Board takes action on the resolution (Attachment 1). The acceptance of these grant funds requires compliance with the annual certifications and assurances, for which the signature pages are attached (Attachment 2). The attached signature pages are for the certifications and assurances for FY 2015 as an example. The FY 2017 certifications and assurances signature pages are very similar to those for FY 2015; however, the County has not yet received them from NCDOT. When received, they will be forwarded to the County Attorney and Chair for review and signatures. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The NCDOT CTP FY 2017 grant requires a 15% local match ($25,015) for administrative expenses and a 10% local match ($31,678) for capital expenses for a total of $56,693. As a comparison, the total CTP grant amount requested for FY 2016 was $166,765 for administrative expenses ($25,015 local match) and $232,286 for capital expenses ($23,229 local match) for a total of$48,244 local match, an increase of$84,496 in total expenses ($8,449 local match) from FY 2016 to FY 2017. The indicated local match amounts will be requested in the upcoming FY 2017 budget cycle and must be committed from Orange County's budget for the performance period of July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017 (FY 2017), as indicated in the attached Local Share Certification for Funding form (Attachment 4). This will require Orange County to obligate funding in its next budget cycle for these expenses. A total of$56,693 would come from the County's general operating budget. This is not expanding any services only to maintain rural services; therefore no OCBRIP funds will be used. He said this was an extended public hearing, and to date no further written comments have been received. He said at the Commissioners' places is a multi-year history sheet. He said the grant amount has been the same since 2012, with the exception of a $20,000 reduction in Orange County, due to the census. A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Price to close the public hearing and to approve the Community Transportation Program Grant application for FY 2017 in the total amount of$483,547 with a local match total of$56,693 to be provided when necessary, approve and authorize the Chair to sign the Community Transportation Program Resolution and the Local Share Certification for Funding form (Attachments 1 and 4), and authorize the Chair and the County Attorney to review and sign the annual Certifications and Assurances document in Attachment 2. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment— Recreational Land Uses — Extension of Public Hearing The Board considered continuing the public hearing on Planning Director initiated Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) text amendments to revise existing regulations governing the development and use of recreational land uses and defer the hearing by adjourning it to December 7, 2015. Michael Harvery, Orange County Planner III, reviewed the following information: This item was presented at the September 8, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing. As articulated during the hearing, staff and the County Attorney's office have determined existing definitions and classification methodology for recreation land uses are inappropriate. Staff proposed new definitions, as well as new development standards, for recreational land uses. The public hearing was adjourned to the November 5, 2015 BOCC meeting in order to receive the Planning Board recommendation. This item was presented at the October 7, 2015 Planning Board meeting where members requested additional modifications and information on potential impacts of proposed regulations. Michael Harvery said a revised abstract has been given to the Board and asked the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to extend and adjourn the hearing until the January 21, 2016 regular meeting. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the item is still open for comments. Michael Harvey said no further public comments are allowed, but written comments can be made to the Planning Board only. John Roberts said there is more flexibility with legislative matters, as they are not quasi- judicial. He said if someone really wanted to comment on this until January, he would probably permit it; but technically there should be no more public comment allowed. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to continue the public hearing until January 21, 2016 to allow the Planning Board to complete its review. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Zoning Atlas Amendment -Jacobs Glass Rezoning - Closure of Public Hearing and Action (No Additional Comments Accepted) The Board received the Planning Board recommendation, considered closing the public hearing, and making a decision on an owner initiated request to rezone a split zoned 9.8 acre parcel of property in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.9.2 of the Unified Development Ordinance. Michael Harvery reviewed the following background, and additional information provided via answers to questions from both the Planning Board and the BOCC. BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the September 8, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing. During the public hearing the following questions/comments were made: 1. A BOCC member asked if the property owner will have to maintain land use buffers along NC 751 and adjacent residential property, both in Orange and Durham counties, if the property were rezoned. STAFF COMMENT.- The property owner will have to comply with established buffers, including: a. The 100 foot perimeter Economic Development District (EDD) buffer required under Section 6.8.12 (C) (1) of the UDO along the southern property line (i.e. railroad right-of- way) and eastern property line (i.e. Durham County line), and b. A 20 foot Type A land use buffer along NC 751 in accordance with Section 6.8.12 (C) (13) of the UDO. The aforementioned land use buffers are the same for EDE-1 and EDE-2 zoned property. 2. A Planning Board member asked if approval of the rezoning petition grants development rights allowing for the expansion of the existing commercial operation. STAFF COMMENT.-As indicated during the public hearing, approval of the zoning atlas amendment does not eliminate the applicant's responsibility to apply for, and obtain, site plan approval and a Zoning Compliance Permit allowing for the expansion of the existing business as required by Section 2.5 of the UDO. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to close the public hearing and adopt the Statement of Consistency, contained within Attachment 5, and the Ordinance amending the Zoning Atlas, contained within Attachment 6, as recommended by the Planning Board and staff. VOTE: UNANIMOUS d. Zoning Atlas Amendment: Conditional Zoning — Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District (MPD-CZ) Hart's Mill - Closure of Public Hearing and Action (No Additional Comments Accepted) The Board considered receiving the Planning Board recommendation, closing the public hearing, and making a decision on a request to rezone a 112 acre parcel of property to Master Plan Development— Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) district in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.9.2 of the Unified Development Ordinance. Michael Harvey reviewed the following information: BACKGROUND: This item was presented at the May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing. Excerpt of minutes from the hearing are contained in Attachment 2. Conditional Zoning District (CZD) Process: The process involves the approval of a rezoning petition and site plan allowing for the development of specific land use(s) on a parcel of property. Applications are processed in a legislative manner (i.e. does not require sworn testimony or evidence) and decisions are based on the BOCC's determination that the project is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The typical cadence for the review of a CZD application is: • First Action — Planning staff schedules a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM). Staff Comment— DONE. This meeting was held on April 8, 2015. • Second Action —The BOCC and Planning Board review the application at 1 of 4 joint Quarterly Public Hearings. Staff Comment— DONE. The public hearing was held on May 26, 2015. • Third Action —The Planning Board makes a recommendation on the proposal. Staff Comment— DONE. The Planning Board began their review of this item at its July 1, 2015 regular meeting and recommended approval of the project at its September 2, 2015 regular meeting. • Fourth Action —The BOCC receives the Planning Board recommendation and makes a decision. Staff Comment—The BOCC will receive the Planning Board recommendation at its November 5, 2015 regular meeting. As articulated at the public hearing, the proposed project is a village style development with approximately 34 dwelling units and involves the preservation of the majority of the property as vegetative open space and farm area (i.e. pasture and crop production). The residential portion of the project would occupy approximately 22 acres of the parcel with another 5 to 8 acres being used to support the proposed septic system. The remaining acreage would be preserved as farmland and dedicated open space. During the public hearing the following comments were made: 1. There was general support for the project. 2. A BOCC member requested additional information on the ownership mechanism proposed by the applicant, expressing concern(s) over how residents will own their individual housing units and surrounding property. STAFF COMMENT: Please refer to Attachment 3 of the abstract for the applicant's response. 3. A BOCC member asked for clarification on the imposition of conditions. STAFF COMMENT: As detailed in the public hearing abstract, mutually agreed upon conditions can be imposed as part this process only if they address: i. The compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding property, ii. Proposed support facilities (i.e. roadways and access points, parking, pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems, screening and buffer areas, etc.) and/or iii. All other matters the County may find appropriate or the petitioner may propose. The applicant has verbally indicated they have accepted the recommended conditions. Further staff has been informed a letter signifying same will be presented at the November 5, 2015 regular BOCC meeting. 4. A BOCC member asked staff to clarify proposed and allowable density. STAFF COMMENT: The property is located within the Rural Residential (R-1) general use zoning district and the Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District allowing for a density of 1 dwelling unit for every 40,000 sq. ft.(0.92 acres) of property. The property is also located within the 20 Year Transition Area as denoted on the Future Land Use Map and is designated as being Urban on the Growth Management System Map indicating urban densities are permitted. This could result in a total of 112 dwelling units being developed on the property based purely on the size of the parcel and not taking other factors into consideration (i.e. adequate soils for septic, road access, permitting process, presence of stream and other environmental features, etc.). If approved the project would only allow for 1 dwelling unit for approximately every 3.2 acres of property and 34 dwelling units. 5. A Planning Board member asked if additional dwelling units could be added in the future. STAFF COMMENT: The plan could be modified through the submittal and processing of a new Conditional Zoning District petition. This would require holding a new neighborhood information meeting and a public hearing to review the proposal. 6. A BOCC member asked if the applicant was being asked to extend road access to adjacent parcels. STAFF COMMENT: It is not practical to extend the proposed roadway to the east due to the presence of streams and floodplain. There is no perceived benefit in requiring connection with adjoining subdivisions as this could create traffic concerns for adjacent neighborhoods. 7. A BOCC member asked the applicant to provide additional detail on the proposed 6 inch water line serving the project and if the line would be adequate to support water for both consumption and firefighting capabilities. STAFF COMMENT: Please refer to Attachment 3 of the abstract for the applicant's response. In consultation with the Fire Marshal and Orange County Emergency Services staff is recommending a condition requiring the final size of required waterlines to be determined at time of permitting with the review and approval of the Orange County Fire Marshal. 8. Several BOCC members asked for clarification on the proposed septic system for the project. STAFF COMMENT: Please refer to Attachment 3 of the abstract for the applicant's response. 9. Planning staff indicated the applicant was asked to provide additional detail on proposed landscaping in and around individual residential structures. STAFF COMMENT: Please refer to Attachment 3 of the abstract for the applicant's response. At the July 1, 2015 Planning Board meeting the following additional information was requested: 1. A Planning Board member asked if there were any marketing materials available for the project and, if so, if copies could be provided. STAFF COMMENT: Please refer to Attachment 5 of the abstract for the applicant's response. 2. Several Planning Board members asked if the applicant was going to allow for the creation of recreational amenities/land uses on the property. There was a concern expressed over requiring the applicant to come back through the process to amend the approved Conditional Zoning district to add a recreational amenity. STAFF COMMENT: The site plan has been modified to include identified recreation areas. The proposed development conditions contained in Attachment 9 were modified to spell out permitted recreational amenities for residents. 3. A Planning Board member asked for a more detailed breakdown of anticipated farm activities that would be allowed on the property. STAFF COMMENT: Please refer to Attachment 5 of the abstract for the applicant's response. 4. The Planning Director asked the applicant to provide additional information on the promotion of"crime prevention through environmental design". STAFF COMMENT: Please refer to Attachment 5 of the abstract for the applicant's response. Michael Harvey reviewed the detailed information in the abstract and the Planning Board's recommendation. Chair McKee asked if the letter of consistency is in attachment 7 or 8. Michael Harvey said attachment 7 contains the letter of consistency approved by the Planning Board, under their signature. He said attachment 8 contains a letter of consistency for the BOCC to approve on its own. Commissioner Pelissier referred to the list of the conditions on page 64 and asked if there are specific square footage requirements for meeting facilities. Michael Harvey said the Applicant did not propose one and the planning staff did not feel it necessary to require one. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to close the public hearing, and to adopt the Statement of Consistency, contained within Attachment 8, and the Ordinance amending the Zoning Atlas, contained within Attachment 9, as recommended by the Planning Board and staff. VOTE: UNANIMOUS e. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment— Public Hearing Process Revisions - Closure of Public Hearing and Action (No Additional Comments Accepted) The Board considered receiving the Planning Board recommendation, closing the public hearing, and making a decision on text amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) initiated by the Planning Director to revise the existing public hearing process for UDO-, Comprehensive Plan, and Zoning Atlas-related items. Perdita Holtz, Orange County Planning Systems Coordinator, said they are here tonight to possibly adopt these text amendments. Perdita Holtz made the following PowerPoint presentation: Public Hearing Process Board of County Commissioners Meeting November 5, 2015 Item 5-e Recent History • Heard at September 8 Quarterly Public Hearing • Purpose: o To revise the current public hearing process for Comprehensive Plan, Unified Development Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas Amendments • Allow the public to make comments at the end of the legislative process. • No longer require only written comments after the public hearing. • Do not require a quorum of Planning Board members in order to hold a quarterly public hearing (but members expected to attend the hearings). • Streamline and speed up the review/decision process when possible. ➢ Have option to make a decision the night of the hearing on items with little controversy. Revisions Since Version Presented at Public Hearing • Retain newspaper legal advertisement for Special Use Permits • Increase notice distance requirements from 500 feet to 1,000 feet for all projects that require mailed notices o Mail notices via first class mail rather than certified mail to keep costs and staff time lower Planning Board Input on Quorum Requirement • Majority of Planning Board members felt that, while the Planning Board should be expected to attend the quarterly public hearings, a quorum of Planning Board members should not be necessary in order to hold a public hearing • Suggested addition of language to the Planning Board Policies and Procedures document to provide clarity for members regarding attendance Timeline Examples • Process for legislative items could be streamlined down to as little as 8 weeks from application deadlines if revised process is adopted • Process for quasi-judicial items could be streamlined down to as little as 10 weeks from application deadlines • Ability to have additional review time when warranted is retained in the proposed processes Planning Board Recommendation • Adopted Statement of Consistency (9-2 vote) • Recommended approval of proposed amendment package (9-2 vote) Additional Information • If adopted, effective date would be January 1, 2016 o Items proposed for the February 2016 quarterly public hearing would be first items processed under the revised procedure • A review of the revised process will be conducted after 1 year o Report to BOCC in early 2017 Recommendation • Receive the Planning Board's recommendation • Close the public hearing • Deliberate as necessary on the proposed amendments • Decide accordingly and/or adopt the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 2) and the Ordinance and Planning Board Policies and Procedures (Attachment 3), as recommended by the Planning Board and staff. Commissioner Rich asked who would bear the responsibility to act if someone needed to be removed from the Planning Board for non-attendance at quarterly public hearings. Perdita Holtz said that authority would lie with the Board of County Commissioners. John Roberts said any Chair, of any advisory board, might excuse anyone from a meeting for reasons such as for sickness. Commissioner Dorosin extended his appreciation to Perdita Holtz for her work on this item. Commissioner Dorosin said he wanted to highlight the streamlining of the process and noted that this will allow for more public engagement throughout the entire hearing process, which is consistent with the BOCC's stated values of transparency and public engagement. Commissioner Price said if the Board of County Commissioners is unable to make a decision when the hearing is closed, the Board used to be able to refer it back to the Planning Board. She asked if this would still be possible. Perdita Holtz said with legislative items the Board could do so, but a quasi judicial item would need to be brought back in a public hearing which would be have to be extended. Commissioner Price also thanked Perdita Holtz for her work on this issue. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded Commissioner Dorosin to close the public hearing and adopt the Statement of Consistency, contained within Attachment 2, and the Ordinance amending the UDO and Planning Board Policies and Procedures, contained within Attachment 3, as recommended by the Planning Board and staff. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6. Consent Agenda • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda Item 6-b by Chair McKee • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda. VOTE: UNANIMOUS • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds The Board considered adopting a resolution to release motor vehicle property tax values for four (4) taxpayers with a total of six (6) bills that will result in a net reduction of revenue of$16,083.54, in accordance with the NCGS. Chair McKee asked if the validity of the numbers in the item had been verified. Dwane Brinson, Orange County Tax Administrator, said this is the market value for these vehicles. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to approve the adoption of a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle property tax values for four (4) taxpayers with a total of six (6) bills that will result in a net reduction of revenue of$16,083.54, in accordance with the NCGS. VOTE: UNANIMOUS a. Minutes The Board approved the minutes from September 29, October 1, and October 6, 2015 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax values for four (4) taxpayers with a total of nine (9) bills that will result in a net reduction of revenue of$10,373.16, in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381. d. Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion The Board approved three (3) untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem taxation for three (3) bills for the 2015 tax year. e. Unified Development Ordinance Amendment Outline and Schedule — Engineering Standards for Development The Board approved process components and schedule for an upcoming government-initiated amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) incorporating engineering standards for property development. 7. Regular Agenda a. Bicycle Safety Resolution and Next Steps The Board considered approving a resolution supporting public and private efforts to increase safety awareness between motorists and bicyclists, roadway safety improvements for bicyclists, and authorizing next steps. Abigaile Pittman, Orange County Planning and Inspections, said staff was directed to bring this item back to the Board of County Commissioners this fall. She reviewed the recommendations included in the abstract, as well as the proposed resolution. She noted that the recommendation regarding a task force is not supported by the County Manager's Office. Bonnie Hammersley said she wanted to elaborate about not recommending a task force. She said she had conversations with the Sheriff, and the County has accomplished most of that over which the County has jurisdiction. She said setting up a County task force without jurisdiction will lead to failure. She said the State Patrol does the enforcement, and the Department of Transportation (DOT) is responsible for County roads. Commissioner Pelissier referred to page 2, saying a lot of it refers to what DOT does. She asked if requests have been made to DOT for any of these improvements. Bonnie Hammersley said these items have been discussed with DOT at past meetings. Abigaile Pittman said DOT is aware of this report and the bicycle safety group has met with both the DOT and the Sheriff's office. She said DOT is willing to review some of these improvements but it has to be for more than just bicycles. Commissioner Rich referred to page 2, item number 3. She asked if there are current enforcement efforts that are seeking to be enhanced. Abigaile Pittman said the County does not have such authority and these efforts would fall under the Sheriff's office. Bonnie Hammersley said the Sheriff feels that he does not have as much authority as the Highway Patrol, regarding citations. Commissioner Rich asked if the enhancements would be more of an educational campaign. Abigaile Pittman said the County can forward this resolution to the DOT and the Sheriff's office in order to partner with bicycle education and to add information to their present quarterly meetings, and also add pertinent information to their website about bicycle safety. Commissioner Rich said all bicycle riders must follow proper road safety. Commissioner Dorosin said enforcement efforts are different than raising public awareness. He said the Sheriff can enforce traffic safety issues and the Sheriff's office knows where the more critical spots are. Commissioner Price asked if there could be a sub-committee of the Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard), which could meet with residents to continue the conversation and bring information back to the BOCC. John Roberts said yes. Commissioner Price asked if a staff person would have to be tasked to this group or could just the sub-committee meet. Bonnie Hammersley said this is not about staff. She said one option would be a sub- committee that has staff available to provide support but the County leading a task force over which it does not authority would be a challenge. Bonnie Hammersley said she could take this information to the Chair of the OUTBoard. PUBLIC COMMENT: Paul Speight said he is the Deputy Chief of the Orange Grove Fire Departments. He said about six weeks ago he and the Fire Chief were responding to an EMS call. On the way, the Chief passed a bicyclist and Paul Speight was following about 500 feet behind. He said as he approached the bicyclist, the cyclist made an abrupt turn, which caused Paul Speight to almost turn over a fire truck. He said bicycles rarely stop at intersections, and many times bicyclists do not move out of the way when they are running trucks out of their station. He said they are asking cyclists to give EMS the right of way and to follow the laws. Norma White said she lives in Little River Township and is speaking tonight on behalf of Schley Grange 710. She said the members are strong advocates for rural road safety. She said, at the request of Schley Grange, the North Carolina Grange included a bicycle resolution on their legislative agenda. She asked if Orange County could adopt a similar resolution. She read the resolution and provided it to the Clerk to the Board. Heidi Perry said she rides in Orange County and has done so for 30 years while obeying the laws. She said she would like to assist the fire department in finding cyclists that do not move out of the way for EMS. She is a bicycle advocate appointed to the OUTBoard, is a founding member of the Carrboro Bicycle Coalition, and a cycling advocate for over 30 years. She is here just representing herself tonight. She said a year ago the Board of County Commissioners tasked the OUTBoard to review this issue and the Board responded with a report outlining how much time it would take to implement their recommendations. She said she is pleased to see this resolution could be easily passed and then put on a shelf. She requested to add the following amendments to the resolution: f. To have a specific action plan that could address 10 goals to address cycle safety and pedestrian safety. g. Budget line item for bicycle safety for education. Heidi Perry said she has rules of the road translated into several languages, which she is happy to share with the Highway Patrol. She said there is a lot of room to work on safety through education. John Rees said he is an Orange County resident and today he represents the Carolina Tar Heel Bicycle Club, which promotes the use of cycling and recreational cycling. He said funding is important, and he reiterated that the road rules are for bicyclists too. He said the club would like to work with Orange County on education. He said he is a cyclist himself and he and the club follow the rules of the road. He said they are law-abiding residents and they like to frequent local businesses in the County as they ride in Orange County. Bonnie Hauser is speaking on behalf of Orange County Voice which has been working on bike safety for years. She said Orange County Voice does not see education as the issue but rather a small number of cyclists and motorists that are causing the problems, in addition to roads that are not built for sharing. She said there are no consequences for cyclists that break the rules of the roads. She said Orange County Voice supports the resolution from the Grange. She asked the Board to consider a similar resolution on Orange County's legislative agenda. Bonnie Hauser said off road cycling options are needed, such as the American Tobacco Trail in Durham, and the Greenway in Wake County. She recommended the convening of a task force to plan off road bikeways in Orange County in partnership with the Towns. She said the task force must include residents from the rural communities. Bryant Dodson said education does not seem to help a lot. He said he lives out near Maple View Farms, which is a destination place. He said he has been working on this issue for a long time and finds many cyclists do follow the rules. He said the ones that do not follow the rules cause the real problems. He said he has been advocating for bicycle licenses and suggested the County do this instead of the State. He said the only way to penalize cyclists is to give them consequences. Kim Dodson said there is a huge need on this issue in their community. She said when a vehicular law is broken people call 911 but if a bike law is broken there is no one to call. She said there is no form of identification. She said tickets are given out to bike riders on campus, but in the rural community this protection does not exist. She asked if the BOCC could please help in the Orange Grove community. Stanley Ray Hoffman lives in Chapel Hill and has been a cyclist for over 50 years. He said he uses the highways and roads. He said he appreciated the discussion but suggested if the topic could be seen from his perspective it would be different. He said motorists are the dangerous ones and laws should be enforced as they apply to both motorists and cyclists. He said he is happy to see a Sheriff's car anytime. He said cyclists are traffic on the road and most obey the law. He said they want law enforcement to enforce the law anywhere and anytime. Commissioner Price said she wanted to re-visit the idea of a sub-committee and is open to suggestions. John Roberts said the BOCC could direct the OUTBoard to create a sub-committee without staff support. Commissioner Rich said it sounds like there is already a group from the OUTBoard that are discussing this topic and asked if Heidi Perry could confirm. Heidi Perry said when the report was put together in June, a sub-committee of the OUTBoard and residents was formed. She said this is doable again. Commissioner Rich said this should be a continuing committee to help achieve some of their proposed goals and to create an action plan. Heidi Perry said it may be helpful to have some data to support generalizations and suggested bringing in Highway Patrol. Commissioner Rich said the OUTBoard already has a sub-committee and to re- convene it. She said it is important to have some sort of funding mechanism for this issue and suggested that the subcommittee bring back a recommendation. Commissioner Dorosin said a subcommittee of the OUTBoard would be just members of the OUTBoard and he suggested adding more members of the community. Commissioner Dorosin referred to the Manager not recommending a task force and said he believes there are things the Board can do, including a more specific resolution. He said the specific items on the abstract should be put in the resolution. He said having some designated bike trails is something the County could do, providing other places for people to ride. He said more funding could be put into the roads, more than just a sign. He said law enforcement could monitor certain trouble areas. He said there could be a more comprehensive approach and to bring the different partners together through a sub-committee or committee. Commissioner Price said the Board charged the OUTBoard to look at this issue last year, and she seeks to continue the conversation. She said the subcommittee could include community members. Bonnie Hammersley said when the petition came last year the issue arose that the OUTBoard cannot appoint outside members, but the BOCC can appoint other citizens outside of the group. She said the BOCC could create a charge to help the task force to succeed, staying within the areas where the County has authority. Commissioner Rich said citizens came to the OUTBoard's previous committee meetings. Bonnie Hammersley said those citizens were not appointed to the committee, but rather the citizens just attended. John Roberts said one of the charges for the OUTBoard is to solicit information from the public, and that is acceptable without formal appointment. Commissioner Pelissier said some boards hold community forums for specific issues and encouraged the OUTBoard to continue this discussion. She said there is a lot of community discussion about enforcement. She said she would urge OUTBoard to look not only at enforcement, with the exception of legislative issues. John Roberts asked if the BOCC is seeking for the legislature to apply laws to bicyclists. Commissioner Pelissier said not necessarily. She said she is interested in hearing what the public would suggest the BOCC consider as a legislative issue. John Roberts said the North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) does include bicycles and they are subject to same laws as motorists, where applicable. Commissioner Pelissier said the State had a concerted effort regarding pedestrian safety and maybe the same can be done with bicyclists. Commissioner Pelissier said there are long-term plans for bicycle lanes in the rural areas of the County, but they are far out and are expensive. She said the State has cut funding for pedestrian and bike projects this year, and bike lanes are too costly for the County to consider. Commissioner Burroughs suggested looking at the Grange resolution, at a minimum. She asked if cyclists can be penalized in the same way as drivers of vehicles. John Roberts said yes, the statute is very clear that the laws applicable to drivers apply equally to cyclists. Commissioner Dorosin asked if there is an advantage of a subcommittee over a task force. Bonnie Hammersley said from her perspective a task force would require appointments from the Board of County Commissioners and a sub committee can have community input and meetings without the formal process. Commissioner Price said the task force is more formal and the sub-committee could continue what it has been doing. She would like the group to do the work and have community participation. Commissioner Rich said this resolution is incomplete and asked if there are next steps. Chair McKee said the item could be sent back to staff and create a task force or sub- committee. Chair McKee said this item is not ready for prime time and he would prefer deferment. He said Commissioner Pelissier said many of the Board members have served on transportation groups and added that many bike projects do not get funded. He said his main concern is not for individual riders, but rather the groups of riders of 25-50 or more. He said the issue of identifying cyclists is a real problem and he believes the conversation must include the topic of licensing bikes on the road in order to identify individuals. Bonnie Hammersley said she would suggest that the Board send it back to staff for a recommendation, which staff will bring back after the holiday break. She said she would meet with the OUTBoard Chair and also the Sheriff to ask him to respond to the Board of County Commissioners at a public meeting. Commissioner Pelissier said a resolution can come back to the Board but this may be an on-going issue. She said all of the advisory boards do a work plan each year and to put these items in the OUTBoard work plan. Commissioner Price said the community just wanted to be heard on this issue. She said she was required to have a bike license as a child so it is not a foreign idea. Commissioner Rich suggested talking to the County's Communication Department to see what would be the best way to bring this education forward to County visitors. Chair McKee said there was an issue with deer hunting years ago and it came down to printing the laws and placing them everywhere in the County. He said making the laws readily available is one tool to address this issue. Commissioner Rich said the laws could be placed on a bike map of Orange County, on the web or in hard copy. A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to refer the resolution back to the Manager to be fleshed out, and for the Manager do all she said and the Board will revisit this in January or February 2016. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 8. Reports a. Community Giving Fund Update The Board received an update on the Orange County Community Giving fund, its evolution to date, and its anticipated future developments and provide comments and direction as appropriate. Bob Marotto, Orange County Animal Services Director, reviewed the following information: BACKGROUND: In 2013, the Orange County Community Giving Fund was created as a mechanism for residents and others to make donations to the County for specific public purposes. The fund is County-wide and all departments have an equal opportunity to participate in this purpose. The creation of the fund was partially in response to feedback that there may be hesitations on the part of the public to donate to the County's general fund. Of special concern was that people did not believe that they are able to decide where and how donated money is used. Additionally, the ability to roll funds over from one year to another was challenging and a secondary fetter on purposive giving. The Community Giving Fund, in contrast, contains a structure that guarantees donations will only be used for the specified purpose for which they are made. It also has an advantage of rolling funds over from year to year for specific projects and programs that may be long-term and unable to be completed in a shorter time frame. All donations to the fund are tax-exempt. The fund has continued to grow annually, in both scope and size, with several changes being made along the way as the County has become more familiar with its opportunities and how to most effectively fit them to its needs. One of these has been introducing the ability to refresh the menu of giving opportunities on a semi-annual basis as needs change and grow within departments or on the County level. Another has been the introduction of the fund to the County's Combined Giving Campaign, a change that first took place in 2014 and will continue for the upcoming 2015 drive. Most recently the County has begun to connect larger initiatives to the potential provided by the Community Giving Fund. Illustrations include the Family Success Alliance, My Brother's Keeper, and the Veteran's Memorial. In the latter case, efforts were underway to find a suitable donation mechanism for the memorial; and ultimately, funds were transferred from another source into the Community Giving Fund to jumpstart the project. Currently, the managing committee for the Community Giving Fund is considering extending outreach about the fund to civic groups active in the County. It is anticipated that this would take place in the form of in-person presentations to a broad range of active civic organizations in Orange County. In addition to its form and content, thought is being given to the timing of such an outreach initiative. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommended that the BOCC receive the update from staff on the Orange County Community Giving Fund and provide comments and direction as appropriate. Bob Marotto made the following PowerPoint presentation: Community Giving Fund Where We Are, Where We're Going History • Started in 2013 • A young endeavor still • Has grown and continues to grow in potential - i.e. Animal Services dog play yard • Managed by the Triangle Community Foundation, a 501(c)3 organization - They're able to handle various types of donations - They receive a small percentage for their services Stats • Since 2013, $71,000 has been raised • Growing annually - 2013 - $9,300 - 2014 - $32,600 - 2015 - $30,000 (thus far) • In 2014, it was incorporated into Combined Giving Campaign - County employees gave $7,000 that year Scope • Creative funding opportunities - Stocks, Real Property, etc • Earmarked funds • Rolls over annually • Relieves fear of donating to general fund Opportunities • County-wide Initiatives - Combined Giving Campaign - Veteran's Memorial - Family Success Alliance - My Brother's Keeper • Presentations Underway with Civic Groups - Will talk about opportunities to do more in the County and dedicated giving to public pursuits Commissioner Burroughs referred to the unallocated donations, and asked if Bob Marotto could expand on these $3000. Bob Marotto said these are people who have given gifts that were not earmarked for a specific purpose. Commissioner Burroughs asked if there is a process to determine where these unallocated funds go. Bob Marotto said the fund is evolving, and people are starting to recognize that there are specific line items. He said the Manager could make the decision about the usage of unallocated funds. Commissioner Dorosin asked if there are ways that this fund has been publicized to residents. Bob Marotto said the fund reached out to advisory boards and commissions providing a portfolio of giving options, used the website, and talked about doing a systematic outreach to civic organizations. Bonnie Hammersley said it has been a fairly passive process to date and talking with civic groups is more about education not fund raising. 9. County Manager's Report Bonnie Hammersley reviewed the items for next week's work session: Projected November 10, 2015 Work Session Topics • Eligibility Changes for Food and Nutrition Benefit Recipients • Space Study Update • Affordable Housing Plan Update • Annual Water Resources Update Bonnie Hammersley said the NCACC will be doing a presentation to the BOCC on the state statute for school funding on December 7th. She said any specific questions could be forwarded to her by December 3,d 10. County Attorney's Report NONE 11. Appointments a. Hillsborough Board of Adjustment—Appointment The Board considered making an appointment to the Hillsborough Board of Adjustment. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to appoint Jamie Tomosunas to the Hillsborough Board of Adjustment to a partial term (position #1) "ETJ County-Alternate" expiring 06/30/2017. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Historic Preservation Commission —Appointments The Board considered making appointments to the Historic Preservation Commission. Commissioner Price said there are two different interpretations of the statute and asked if the applicant must to live in the County and the Town of Hillsborough, or only the County. John Roberts said he interpreted these statutes to mean that whomever is appointed must be a resident of the County's territorial jurisdiction (anywhere within the County lines), which includes towns. Conversely, a town's Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) cannot include county residents except those from an ETJ area. These are the applicable statutes: § 160A-400.2. Exercise of powers by counties as well as cities. The term "municipality" or "municipal" as used in G.S. 160A-400.1 through 160A-400.14 shall be deemed to include the governing board or legislative board of a county, to the end that counties may exercise the same powers as cities with respect to the establishment of historic districts and designation of landmarks § 160A-400.7. Historic Preservation Commission. Before it may designate one or more landmarks or historic districts, a municipality shall establish or designate a historic preservation commission. The municipal governing board shall determine the number of the members of the commission, which shall be at least three, and the length of their terms, which shall be no greater than four years. A majority of the members of such a commission shall have demonstrated special interest, experience, or education in history, architecture, archaeology, or related fields. All the members shall reside within the territorial jurisdiction of the municipality as established pursuant to G.S. 160A-360. The commission may appoint advisory bodies and committees as appropriate. § 160A-360. Territorial jurisdiction. (a) All of the powers granted by this Article may be exercised by any city within its corporate limits. In addition, any city may exercise these powers within a defined area extending not more than one mile beyond its limits. § 160A-400.8. Powers of the Historic Preservation Commission. A preservation commission established pursuant to this Part may, within the zoning jurisdiction of the municipality: A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to appoint the following to the HPC: • Jaime Grant to a first full term (Position #1) At-Large expiring 03/31/2018. • Thomas Loter to a partial term (Position #2) At-Large expiring 06/30/2017. • Kolby Herndon to (Position #3) At-Large for expiring 03/30/2018. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Human Relations Commission —Appointments The Board considered making an appointment to the Human Relations Commission (H RC). A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Price to appoint the following to the HRC: • Colin O'Banion to a partial term (Position #2) "Town of Carrboro" representative expiring 06/30/2017. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to appoint Desiree Rockett to position #15-At-Large position- expiring June 30, 2017. VOTE: UNANIMOUS d. Mebane Planning Board —Appointment The Board considered making an appointment to the Mebane Planning Board. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to appoint the following to the Mebane Planning Board: • Thomas Fenske for an additional term (Position #1) "Extraterritorial Jurisdiction" for expiring 06/30/2019. VOTE: UNANIMOUS e. OPC Oversight Board —Appointments The Board considered making appointments to the OPC Oversight Board. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to appoint the following to the OPC Oversight Board: • Mary Cay Corr to a second full term (Position #1) BOCC Designee expiring 06/30/2018. • Jesse Brunson to a first full term (Position #2) Consumer or Family Member representative expiring 06/30/2018. VOTE: UNANIMOUS f. Orange County Planning Board —Appointments The Board considered making appointments to the Orange County Planning Board. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to appoint Patricia Roberts to a first full term (position #3) "Cheeks Township" expiring 03/31/2018. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 12. Board Comments Commissioner Rich said she heard a discussion on WCHL with the Department on Aging. She said it was good conversation about the diversity at the County senior centers. Commissioner Pelissier attended the Nursing Home Advisory Committee meeting, and she was very impressed with this board and its members' dedication. Commissioner Dorosin said he had no comments. Commissioner Burroughs said she had no comments. Commissioner Price said she visited the Rogers Road Community Center Halloween event and it was nice to see the community center being used by so many groups of people. Chair McKee attended the press conference at the Lincoln Center about the achievement gap and has been invited to speak to the Southern branch of the Orange County National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) on Saturday, November 7th. 13. Information Items • October 20, 2015 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List • Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis • Tax Collector's Report— Measure of Enforced Collections • Tax Assessor's Report— Releases/Refunds under $100 • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from October 20, 2015 Regular Meeting 14. Closed Session A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to go into closed session at 9:41 p.m. for the purpose of: "To discuss the County's position and to instruct the County Manager and County Attorney on the negotiating position regarding the terms of a contract to purchase real property," NCGS § 143-318.11(a)(5). VOTE: UNANIMOUS RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to reconvene into regular session at 10:20 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 15. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Price to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Earl McKee, Chair Donna Baker Clerk to the Board