HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-22-2016 - 6-a - Minutes ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: March 22, 2016
Action Agenda
Item No. 6-a
SUBJECT: MINUTES
DEPARTMENT: Board of County
Commissioners
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Draft Minutes Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
(919) 245-2130
PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board as
listed below.
BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board
has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's
proceedings.
February 16, 2016 BOCC Regular Meeting
February 18, 2016 BOCC QPH and Work Session
February 25, 2016 BOCC Joint Meeting with Town of Hillsborough
FINANCIAL IMPACT: NONE
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: NONE
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as presented
or as amended.
1
1 Attachment 1
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 REGULAR MEETING
6 February 16, 2016
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, February
10 16, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center, in Chapel Hill, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair McKee and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
13 Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy Manager Travis
17 Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
18 appropriately below)
19
20 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
21 Chair McKee noted the following item at the Commissioners' places:
22 - Yellow sheet for Item-4b: adopted facility-naming policy
23
24 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
25
26 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
27 defer item-4a: Re-naming of the Orange County Farmers' Market Pavilion to the Orange
28 County David Price Pavilion.
29
30 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
31
32 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
33 defer item-6b: Sole Source Bid Award: Software Purchase for Emergency Medical Services.
34
35 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
36
37 PUBLIC CHARGE
38
39 Chair McKee dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
40
41 2. Public Comments
42
43 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
44 Chris and Carol Brewer said they live on Morrow Mill Road, where they are
45 renovating a 19th century barn and building a farm to grow chestnuts, flowers, and honey.
46 Chris Brewer said they are here this evening to introduce themselves, noting they have
47 been working with Orange County for two years on this project, and are available to meet
48 with anyone who may have questions.
49 Joe Phelps said he has attended Commissioner meetings over the past 40 years
50 and noted there is a great meeting facility in the old Hillsborough High School that could
2
1 serve as an effective meeting place, the Whitted Building. He said he would like to see
2 all BOCC meetings occur in one location, as it would be helpful to the public to know one
3 location as opposed to two locations.
4
5 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
6 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda
7 below.)
8
9 3. Petitions by Board Members
10 Commissioner Pelissier had no petitions.
11 Commissioner Jacobs said based on some of the emails the Board has received, he
12 sees citizens may misunderstand what is written on agendas in reference to the public
13 hearings. He said public comment is available at all public meetings, not just quarterly public
14 hearings. He asked the Manager if she could amend the abstract face sheets to avoid this
15 confusion.
16 Commissioner Jacobs asked the Board to prepare a resolution to honor former
17 Commissioner Norm Gustaveson, who passed away last week, at a time that is convenient to
18 his family. He said he would like to invite all living past Commissioners.
19 Chair McKee asked if the Manager could please move forward with both of
20 Commissioner Jacobs' petitions.
21 Commissioner Rich echoed Commissioner Jacobs' comments about former
22 Commissioner Gustaveson, noting a memorial service to be held on February 28 at 2:00 p.m. at
23 Carol Woods.
24 Commissioner Dorosin said the Board had been talking about Economic Development
25 District zones, and he petitioned the Manager, or the Economic Development office, for a report
26 about the area on highway 54 west of Carrboro regarding zoning and infrastructure to maximize
27 the property.
28 Commissioner Price had no petitions.
29 Commissioner Burroughs had no petitions.
30 Chair McKee had no petitions.
31
32 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
33
34 a. Re-naming of the Orange County Farmers' Market Pavilion to the Orange County
35 David Price Pavilion
36 The Board will consider approving the resolution re-naming the Orange County Farmers'
37 Market Pavilion to the Orange County David Price Pavilion, and if approved, authorize the Chair
38 to sign the resolution.
39
40 DEFERRED
41
42 b. Re-naming of the Central Orange Senior Center to the Jerry M. Passmore Center
43 The Board considered approving the resolution re-naming the Central Orange Senior
44 Center to the Jerry M. Passmore Center, and authorized the Chair to sign the resolution.
45 Chair McKee said Jerry Passmore has been instrumental in the successful creation of
46 the two senior centers in Orange County, and the BOCC has responded to requests by the
47 Friends of the Orange County Senior Center for a renaming in Mr. Passmore's honor.
48
3
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to
2 approve the resolution re-naming the Central Orange Senior Center to the Jerry M. Passmore
3 Center, and authorized the Chair to sign the resolution.
4
5 Commissioner Pelissier said she is not going to vote for this resolution for several
6 reasons. She said she talked with Jerry Passmore before the meeting and her decision has
7 nothing to do with him. She said she has a few philosophical issues, with the first being the
8 naming of a facility after a living person and the second being the re-naming of an already
9 named facility.
10 Commissioner Pelissier said the Board had been working to engage the public at a
11 greater level than in the past and if a facility is going be renamed, the public should be engaged
12 in a greater way. She said it is the prerogative of the BOCC to name facilities but notes her
13 own feelings about this are too strong to vote in favor of this motion.
14 Commissioner Burroughs said when they discussed this issue last fall, she expressed
15 her feelings that she does not believe in naming buildings after a living person. She also noted
16 that her decision has nothing to do with Jerry Passmore because he has contributed so much to
17 the senior population.
18 Chair McKee said there is no question that the Board admired the work of Jerry
19 Passmore, but some Commissioners have strong convictions on the re-naming issue.
20
21 VOTE: Ayes, 5 (Chair McKee, Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner
22 Price, Commissioner Rich); Nays, 2 (Commissioner Burroughs and Commissioner Pelissier)
23
24 Commissioner Dorosin read the resolution:
25
26 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
27 RESOLUTION RE-NAMING THE CENTRAL ORANGE SENIOR CENTER FOR JERRY M.
28 PASSMORE
29
30 WHEREAS, Jerry Passmore provided executive oversight of the merger of the Chapel Hill
31 Council on Aging with the Orange County Council on Aging into a unified county-
32 wide system; and,
33
34 WHEREAS, Mr. Passmore proposed, in coordination with the County Council on Aging, the
35 Orange County ordinance establishing the first County Department on Aging; and,
36
37 WHEREAS, Mr. Passmore promoted the development of public-private partnerships in serving
38 older adults, by involving the entire community; and,
39
40 WHEREAS, Jerry Passmore provided executive oversight to the BOCC appointed senior
41 planning committees that led to the construction and opening of the Robert and
42 Pearl Seymour Center and the Central Orange Senior Center;
43
44 NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Orange County Board of Commissioners does
45 hereby recognize Jerry M. Passmore for his visionary planning and
46 establishing and coordinating needed senior services in Orange County
47 by re-naming the Central Orange Senior Center to the Jerry M. Passmore
48 Center.
49
4
1 This, the sixteenth day of February 2016.
2
3 Jerry Passmore said over the 35 years he has been involved in Orange County, there
4 have been citizens with many different opinions, which is wonderful. He thanked the BOCC for
5 this honor. He recalled former Commissioner Norm Gustayson and the BOCC, who in 1980
6 were involved in establishing the Department of Aging, by official ordinance, which was a first in
7 the State. He said the most important thing to note is that the people, staff and volunteers are
8 who make the senior centers what they are today, rather than the name of the facility.
9 Jerry Passmore thanked the Board of County Commissioners for its efforts in regards to
10 the future challenges in the area of aging.
11 Leo Allison said this is joyous time for the seniors, the members of the Friends Board,
12 Jerry Passmore, and the Department of Social Services (DSS) for making this center the best
13 in North Carolina. He said Jerry Passmore was a visionary for the Orange County senior
14 centers, and thanked the Board of County Commissioners for making this re-naming possible.
15 He said they are proud of the senior centers, and the senior population, and noted none of it
16 would be possible without the leadership of the current director Janice Tyler and the Board of
17 County Commissioners.
18 Commissioner Jacobs said he worked with Jerry Passmore for most of his time in office
19 until Mr. Passmore retired. He echoed the sentiments regarding Mr. Passmore's visionary
20 leadership and highlighted his passionate advocacy and practical efforts in regards to seniors
21 and the area of aging in Orange County.
22
23 c. Resolution Recognizing Indigenous Peoples' Day
24 The Board considered approving the resolution recognizing the second Monday in
25 October as Indigenous Peoples' Day in Orange County and, if approved, authorize the Chair to
26 sign the resolution.
27 Chair McKee said Commissioners Price and Rich have been instrumental in bringing
28 this resolution forward.
29 Commissioner Price said the person who helped to get this resolution rolling was
30 Stephen Dear in 2014, along with members of other municipalities. She said the goal was to
31 get a five government agreement to honor Indigenous Peoples' Day
32 Commissioner Rich thanked Commissioner Price for all of her work and all of the other
33 elected officials. She also thanked Danny Bell, who took several hours to explain to her the
34 importance of this honoring this day.
35 Commissioner Price said present this evening are Tony Hayes, who is the Tribal Chief
36 of the Occaneechi Band of Saponi Nation, and Commissioners Jenn Weaver and Mark Bell, as
37 this is a unified effort.
38
39 Commissioner Price read the resolution:
40
41 RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE SECOND MONDAY OF OCTOBER AS INDIGENOUS
42 PEOPLES' DAY
43
44 WHEREAS, the people of Orange County of the State of North Carolina, inclusive of the
45 incorporated and unincorporated areas, recognize that nations of Indigenous Peoples have
46 lived upon this land now known as the Americas since time immemorial; and
47
48 WHEREAS, Orange County acknowledges that the annexation of the homelands of Indigenous
49 Peoples occurred over the centuries for the establishment and development of Orange County;
50 and
5
1
2 WHEREAS, Orange County values the contributions made to the progress of society
3 accomplished through the knowledge, labor, technology, philosophy, arts and culture of
4 Indigenous Peoples; and
5
6 WHEREAS, Orange County recognizes its responsibility to promote the human and civil rights
7 of all people inclusive of Indigenous People of the United States; and
8
9 WHEREAS, the people of Orange County understand that, to help close the equity gap,
10 governments, agencies and institutions must change policies and practices to reflect the
11 experiences of the Indigenous Peoples of this land, and uplift the Indigenous Peoples of this
12 nation; and
13
14 WHEREAS, the idea of Indigenous Peoples' Day was proposed first in 1977 by a delegation of
15 Indigenous Nations who came before the International Conference on Discrimination Against
16 Indigenous Populations in the Americas, sponsored by the United Nations; and
17
18 WHEREAS, on February 4, 2002, the Occaneechi Band of the Saponi Nation, located in
19 Orange, Caswell and Alamance Counties, became the eighth state-recognized Indian tribe in
20 North Carolina, and is one of 567 Indigenous Nations in the United States; and
21
22 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of County
23 Commissioners henceforth shall recognize the second Monday in October as Indigenous
24 Peoples' Day to celebrate and honor the history, legacy, heritage and activism of Indigenous
25 Peoples that have existed here since pre-European colonialism; and
26
27 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Orange County, in concert with the Towns of Carrboro,
28 Chapel Hill and Hillsborough, encourages elected bodies, educational institutions, businesses
29 and organizations throughout the United States likewise to adopt and recognize Indigenous
30 Peoples' Day; and
31
32 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Orange County, inclusive of the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel
33 Hill and Hillsborough, joins the Tribal Council of the Occaneechi Band of the Saponi Nation in
34 declaring that Indigenous Peoples' Day shall be an opportunity to celebrate the thriving cultures
35 and values of Indigenous Peoples; and
36
37 BE IT MOREOVER RESOLVED, that Indigenous Peoples' Day shall be used to reflect upon
38 the struggles of all Indigenous People in this land including, those whose ancestors lived in the
39 area now known as Orange County, and to reaffirm a commitment toward reconciliation among
40 all Peoples, and thereby to promote the progress and advancement of civilization.
41
42
43 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price to
44 approve the resolution recognizing the second Monday in October as Indigenous Peoples' Day
45 in Orange County and authorized the Chair to sign the resolution.
46
47 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
48
49 Commissioner Rich presented the resolution to Tony Hayes.
6
1 Tony Hayes said he sees recognition, acknowledgement and declaration as an act of
2 courage. He said the indigenous (American Indians) of Orange County are pleased this step
3 has been taken and would like to be more interactive with Orange County in the future. He said
4 they are looking forward to better relationships with Orange County. He works with the seven
5 other tribes within the State, and North Carolina is the most populous Indian state east of the
6 Mississippi. He said all the tribes want to be a part of the discussion to make North Carolina
7 better, and the Occaneechi are the only tribe in the central part of the State. He said the tribe
8 seeks to make Orange County the most progressive county in the State. He said they are
9 pleased to have the opportunity to get the resolution and look forward to working with Orange
10 County.
11
12 d. OWASA Annual Update Presentation
13 The Board considered receiving the presentation and information from the Orange
14 Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) on recent activities, and providing any feedback as
15 necessary.
16
17 BOCC appointees: Terri Buckner and Barbara Middleton-Foushee
18 Barbara Middleton-Foushee is here with Terri Buckner, Mary Darr, OWASA Director of
19 Engineering and Planning, and Ed Kerwin, OWASA Executive Director. She said Chair John
20 Young was unable to attend.
21 Barbara Middleton-Foushee reviewed the following information:
22
23 Sewer system design for the Historic Rogers Road Area
24 Design and the process of getting construction permits are on schedule for completion in the
25 fall of 2016. Surveying, checking for underground rock and other information gathering in the
26 neighborhood are 95% complete. Design work to establish the basic sewer route was
27 completed in December 2015. The Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA), the
28 Marian Cheek Jackson Center, Orange County, the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and
29 OWASA met with residents on July 28, 2015 to discuss the design process and on December
30 8, 2015 to discuss the County's acquisition of easements for the sewer lines.
31
32 Once there is a decision to proceed with construction, they estimate it will take about 19 months
33 for bidding, award of the contact and completion of construction. The estimated total cost of
34 design and construction is about $5.7 million, excluding costs for easement acquisition, sewer
35 connection fees, the private sewer connection pipes and related plumbing work.
36
37 Advanced Meter Infrastructure (AMI)
38 AMI is a meter reading system including fixed antennae for remotely reading water meters with
39 batteries for data transmission. Vehicles would not be necessary for readings, with resulting
40 savings in energy and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. AMI would enable faster
41 detection of leaks, customers could monitor their daily water use on line and AMI would not
42 require a rate increase. They completed a detailed feasibility study on AMI in January 2016.
43
44 On January 21, 2016, they approved a plan for community engagement including receiving
45 citizens' comments in our February 25, March 10 and March 24, 2016 Board meetings. They
46 may make a decision on whether to proceed with AMI at our March 24, 2016 Board meeting.
47 They will send additional information soon and invited questions and feedback.
48
49 Terri Buckner reviewed the following information:
7
1
2 Affordability Outreach
3 On October 22, 2015 we approved a plan to implement affordability outreach on a permanent
4 basis in 2016. The program is designed to increase awareness of options it reduce OWASA
5 bills and empower low-income customers and local agencies with information and tools for bill
6 reduction.
7 The program will draw on experience with our pilot program, which included work with 14
8 community agencies including Orange County, the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, and
9 social services and affordable housing agencies; and a water conservation pilot project with six
10 low-income customers. Key upcoming items will include expanding our partnership to involve
11 rental property owners and managers, continuing to work with partners, helping customers in
12 need and proactive water conservation outreach.
13
14 Mountains-to-Sea Trail (MST)
15 OWASA staff is working with Orange County staff on this issue, and the Board looks forward to
16 learning more about the MST soon. The 2009 OWASA Board of Directors voted to support the
17 MST on OWASA lands.
18
19 Financial management/rates
20 Fiscal Year 2016 is the fourth consecutive year with no increase in monthly water and sewer
21 rates. They continue to meet their financial performance objectives including our bond rating of
22 AA+. They are considering potential changes to our rate structure to help ensure that service
23 affordability, conservation, and equity across customer classes continue to be addressed and
24 that we have the financial capacity to sustain our infrastructure and services. If changes are
25 proposed, there will be a public engagement process.
26
27 Biosolids
28 On October 8, 2015 they decided to move toward recycling about 75% of our biosolids in
29 "liquid" form on approved farms (when practical), and recycling about 25% in dewatered form at
30 a composting facility in Chatham County. Our past practice was to apply about 50% of our
31 biosolids on farmland and dewater 50% for composting. Our Class A biosolids continue to meet
32 Federal standards for Exceptional Quality.
33
34 This approach will continue their partnership with local farmers and maintain flexibility for
35 alternative biosolids management strategies in the future.
36
37 Care to Share Customer Assistance Program (formerly Taste of Hope)
38 About 5% of our customers donate monthly with bill payments. We received about $4,600 in
39 2015. We also encourage citizens to give directly to the Inter-Faith Council (IFC). In response
40 to an appeal by Executive Director Ed Kerwin to various businesses in July 2015, the IFC
41 received about $1,500 for the Care to Share program. Marketing included information in our
42 newsletter, bills, on the OWASA and IFC websites, and asking new customers to sign up as
43 donors.
44
45 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the Care to Share Customer Assistance program is
46 funded by private contributions only.
47 Terri Buckner said yes, adding OWASA is not allowed to contribute to this fund in any
48 way.
49 Commissioner Jacobs said several BOCC members have asked if OWASA could re-
50 visit the purchase and sale agreement. He said there is no one at the University of North
8
1 Carolina who was present for the sale of the system to OWASA. He said it would be worth
2 approaching a new chancellor to discuss getting beyond the full cost-of-service model as it so
3 limits OWASA.
4 Commissioner Pelissier encouraged the OWASA Board to relay any questions
5 regarding the MST to the Board of County Commissioners directly.
6 Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Rich thanked them all for their continued hard
7 work.
8
9 5. Public Hearings
10 NONE
11
12 6. Consent Agenda
13 • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
14 - 6b-DEFERRED: Sole Source Bid Award: Software purchase for emergency medical
15 services.
16 - 6g by Commissioner Price
17
18 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
19
20 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
21 approve the remaining items on the consent agenda.
22
23 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
24
25 • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
26
27 6g-Amendment to the Orange County Code of Ordinances — Display of Pyrotechnics
28 Ordinance
29 Commissioner Price asked if there was public discussion on the final draft of this
30 ordinance.
31 John Roberts said the BOCC asked for a way to address this issue, as did the Fire
32 Marshal. He said rather than putting this forward as part of a larger ordinance, a specific
33 ordinance is being put forward on its own. He said there was not a public hearing.
34 Commissioner Price said she is concerned that there has been no public comment on
35 the ordinance.
36 Commissioner Jacobs said he would like this item added to an agenda for discussion
37 and to allow for public comment.
38
39 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
40 table this item for later consideration.
41
42 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
43
44 a. Minutes
45 The Board approved the minutes for December 7, 2015, Regular Meeting Minutes (Correction
46 Sheet); January 21, 2016, BOCC Regular Meeting; and January 29, 2016, BOCC Annual
47 Retreat, as submitted by the Clerk to the Board.
48 b. Sole Source Bid Award: Software Purchase for Emergency Medical Services-
49 The Board will consider: 1) awarding the sole source bid to Bradshaw Consulting Services in
50 the amount of$179,540 for the purchase and installation of the "MARVLIS" software that will be
9
1 located at Orange County Emergency Services at 510 Meadowlands Drive in Hillsborough; and
2 2) authorize the Manager to sign the vendor contract upon final review and approval of the
3 County Attorney.
4 DEFERRED
5
6 c. Fiscal Year 2015-16 Budget Amendment#6
7 The Board approved budget and grant project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2015-16
8 for the Department of Social Services; Community Relations; Library Services; and
9 Planning/Inspections and Orange Public Transportation
10 d. Application for North Carolina Education Lottery Proceeds for Chapel Hill — Carrboro
11 City Schools (CHCCS) and Contingent Approval of Budget Amendment#6-A Related to
12 CHCCS Capital Project Ordinances
13 The Board approved, and authorized the Chair to sign, the application for North Carolina
14 Education Lottery Proceeds; and approved Budget Amendment#6-A receiving the Lottery
15 Proceeds and the amended CHCCS Capital Project Ordinances, contingent on NCDPI's
16 approval of the application.
17 e. 2015 Update to County Sheriff's Office: Records Retention and Disposition Schedule
18 The Board approved the updated County Sheriff's Office Records Retention and Disposition
19 Schedule dated November 15, 2015, and authorized the Chair to sign the Schedule.
20 f. Resolution Acknowledging February 23, 2016 as Spay Neuter Day in Orange County,
21 North Carolina
22 The Board adopted the resolution, which is incorporated by reference, acknowledging February
23 23, 2016 as Spay Neuter Day in Orange County, and authorized the Chair to sign the
24 resolution.
25 g. Amendment to the Orange County Code of Ordinances — Display of Pyrotechnics
26 Ordinance-
27 The Board will consider: 1) Deliberating as necessary on proposed amendments to the Orange
28 County Code of Ordinances, and 2) Adopting the pyrotechnics display provisions into the
29 Orange County Code of Ordinances, authorize the Chair to sign the Resolution of Adoption,
30 and authorize the County Attorney to make any minor non-substantive changes or corrections
31 that may be necessary prior to submission of the amendment to Municode.
32
33 TABLED FOR FUTURE MEETING AGENDA
34
35 h. Boards and Commissions-Commissioner Assignments
36 The Board approved the list of boards and commissions on which members of the Board of
37 County Commissioners have chosen to serve on as agreed upon at the February 9, 2016
38 BOCC Work Session.
39
40 7. Regular Agenda
41 a. Amendment to the Orange County Code of Ordinances — Regulating the
42 Discharge of Firearms
43 The Board considered: 1. Deliberating as necessary on the proposed amendments to
44 the Orange County Code of Technical Ordinances (UDO); and 2. Adopting the firearms
45 discharge provisions into the Orange County Code of Ordinances, authorize the Chair to sign
46 the Resolution of Adoption, and authorize the County Attorney to make any minor non-
47 substantive changes or corrections that may be necessary prior to submission of the
48 amendment to Municode.
49
10
1 BACKGROUND: This item was presented in similar form at the January 21, 2016 meeting by
2 Orange County Planning Staff as an amendment to the Orange County Code of Technical
3 Ordinances ("UDO") recommended by the Planning Board.
4 The proposed amendments establish new regulations governing the discharge of firearms on
5 private property. At the January 21, 2016 meeting the Board of County Commissioners
6 determined the regulation of the discharge of firearms was more appropriately regulated
7 through Orange County's police power and its General Ordinances rather than through the
8 UDO. The Board of County Commissioners, after receiving the Planning Board's
9 recommendation and discussing the item, instructed the County Attorney to bring the Planning
10 Board's recommended language back for consideration at the February 16, 2016 regular
11 meeting.
12 Among other things the recommended ordinance restricts the discharge of firearms to 10:00
13 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily, prohibits the discharge of firearms within designated distances of
14 property lines and dwelling structures, requires discharged projectiles to remain on the property
15 upon which they are discharged, and requires most firearms discharges to be directed into a
16 projectile-proof backstop. The ordinance will not impact or regulate hunting activities.
17
18 Chair McKee said regardless of the emails from Grassroots NC, there has never been a
19 closed meeting regarding this ordinance, and it has twice been on the Board of County
20 Commissioners' agendas and twice at quarterly Public Hearings. He agreed this item should
21 have gone through more of a public process. He said there had never been any intent to have
22 a closed session or meeting about this issue, or to hide anything.
23 John Roberts said the language in front of the BOCC tonight is mostly from the Planning
24 Department's recommended changes to the UDO. He said when the item came before the
25 BOCC in January 2016, he had concerns about the language as the statutory authority to
26 regulate this issue does not come from any land use related authority; but rather is separate
27 and specific under the County's police power. He said he is uncomfortable with intermingling
28 those two lines of authority, as it leads to enforcement issues, and thus court issues. He said
29 the current language, with a few exceptions, is exactly as the Planning Department wrote it,
30 with a few grammatical changes and some insertions from Sheriff Blackwood from a Lenoir
31 County ordinance.
32 John Roberts said the Sheriff noted that the backstop requirement in section C-4 is
33 probably excessive, and noted that the National Sport Shooting Foundation recommends 15
34 feet in height, but makes no depth recommendation. He said the Sheriff recommended
35 changes to section C-6, suggesting changing the hours from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. to 7:00
36 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. He said the Sheriff's recommended changes to subsections E and F, due
37 to the extreme cost and effort involved in complying with them.
38 John Roberts said he recommended changing the initial sentence in subsection G, to be
39 clear that all those items would not be impacted by this ordinance. He said these items include
40 lawful defense of property, hunting, pursuant to directions of law enforcement officers, actions
41 by law enforcement officers, firearms instruction, and engaging in target shooting. He said the
42 Planning Board recommended that target shooting occur two or fewer days per month, which
43 may also be overly restrictive for rural areas.
44 John Roberts said the County does not have the authority to regulate hunting and this
45 ordinance does not regulate hunting activities.
46 Chair McKee referred to the potential cost of signage and noted he has 168 acres and
47 he would have to put up 400-600 signs.
48 Commissioner Dorosin asked if this same ordinance has been adopted in Lenoir
49 County.
11
1 John Roberts said no, only some portions of this ordinance were adopted in Lenoir
2 County. He said the Sheriff offered the Lenoir ordinance as a reasonable model and portions of
3 it were combined with the Planning Board's recommendations to create the document before
4 the BOCC this evening.
5 Commissioner Jacobs suggested returning to a model similar to the Orange County
6 Hunting Committee, which last met in 2001. He said such a committee could bring together all
7 stakeholders to discuss issues and proposed resolutions.
8 Commissioner Jacobs said anyone in attendance this evening interested in participating
9 in such a committee should contact the Clerk's office.
10 Commissioner Rich commented to the audience that it is certainly permissible to record
11 the meeting, but noted all meetings are filmed and can be streamed from the County website,
12 or downloaded at any time.
13
14 PUBLIC COMMENT:
15 Joshua Summey said he is a sixth generation of Orange County and his entire family
16 enjoys shooting sports. He said is he surprised by this proposed ordinance, as it is onerous,
17 intrusive and unnecessary. He said the buffer requirements are totally unreasonable. He is
18 against the proposed ordinance.
19 Harry Sumner said he agreed with first speaker and this ordinance should not be
20 passed. He said he liked Commissioner Jacobs' suggestion of a hunting committee. He said
21 he is disappointed that he only learned about this issue yesterday by happenstance, noting he
22 does not have the Internet. He said to please notify people that are not in the digital age. He
23 asked if this ordinance is intended to regulate noise or firearms, and, if it is the former, then
24 firecrackers should also be listed. He said this ordinance should be dead in the water right
25 now, until further input is offered.
26 Heather Florio said she and her husband are new to northern Orange County and they
27 left their home in Colorado because of such regulations, bringing their multimillion-dollar
28 business to Orange County.
29 Phillip Florio said they have many employees who hunt and though the proposed
30 ordinance does not address hunting, it may end up doing just that. He said some people need
31 to hunt their land in order to have food to eat. He said there is a lot more work to be done on
32 this issue.
33 Scott Jens said he is a retired police officer and he is here to talk about safety and the
34 buffer zone. He said citizens are their own first line of defense. He referred to the buffer zone,
35 saying he owns 8 acres, and has a berm. He said building a berm, which would comply with
36 the proposed ordinance, would cost him $4,500 alone for the dirt and another $2,000 for the
37 labor. He said the proposed ordinance is discrimination based on lack of income, and he does
38 not have $6,500. He asked the BOCC to take this into account.
39 Thomas Warren asked if there is a reason for the proposed ordinance and where he
40 lives this is not a problem. He said the ordinance seems to be written for a commercial
41 shooting range. He said the ordinance uses the word "or" between the items in section C, thus
42 if he meets one of ten items, one meets the ordinance. He said this is a difficult ordinance to
43 read and understand. He agreed that the backstop issue is excessive. He said he has 50
44 acres and would require 100 signs. He said he wonders how signage will be enforced, and the
45 purpose of it on portions of land where shooting does not occur. He said he finds the signs to
46 be an unfunded mandate; and if the County desires signs, the County should provide them. He
47 said there are many inconsistencies in this ordinance. He said if some people did complain,
48 how are the rights of one side balanced with the rights of the other side. He does not agree
49 with a hunting committee but rather asks the BOCC to vote the ordinance down.
12
1 Dan Axson said he is an avid hunter and shooter. He said to a lot of people target
2 practice means training, and one needs to train for the type of environment in which one might
3 find oneself. He said if problems do arise, the Sheriff's office will typically show up, and thus he
4 sees no reason for an ordinance. He said there are many turkey shoots in the county that
5 serve as fundraisers and believes this ordinance will take away these positive community
6 events. He also noted children involved with Future Farmers of America may be adversely
7 affected by this ordinance. He referred to the required signage and said he does not want to
8 advertise that he has firearms. He said if the ordinance goes through, he is greatly concerned
9 what else may be taken away from the citizens.
10 Darin Knapp read the following email:
11
12 Chairman McKee and members of the Board,
13
14 Thank you all for the opportunity to be present tonight and for the opportunity to speak. My wife
15 and I are here in support of tabling the proposed gun ordinance and to suggest that the Board
16 re-evaluates the motivations behind this initiative and uses that re-evaluation to guide the
17 course of any follow-on initiative. Having read the documents surrounding this issue, and
18 having long considered the customs and traditions of our rural neighbors and farmers, some of
19 whom are gun enthusiasts, it appears clear to me that this discussion is being led from a
20 narrow place despite having over-reaching implications that would unfairly restrict the private
21 use of land by a large constituency of our County. Nowhere in the documentation on this
22 proposed ordinance could I find meaningful reference to the healthy traditions that surround
23 shooting sports or about how regular target shooting makes for a hunter who has solid
24 command of guns and is thus safer to him or herself or others. One doesn't have to be a gun
25 enthusiast to respect those who are.
26
27 Perceptions and reality need parsed out here, particularly with regard to the safety concerns
28 and discomfort of some that have apparently arisen as a consequence of others enjoying their
29 hobbies and honing their skills on their private land. What exactly are the perceived threats that
30 seem to motivate discussions here? What evidence is there? Will perceived threats, instead of
31 actual threats, rule the day? How many bullet holes have we counted? How many citizens
32 have been killed or injured by a gun hobbyist target practicing on their own nearby land?
33 Compare that number to all the other well-documented threats that citizens face and put the
34 issue in perspective. I think it's helpful to remember that the term "gun enthusiast" does not
35 translate into "criminal."
36
37 There can be little doubt that the motivation behind this proposal arises in part from a fear of the
38 sound of a gunshot, regardless of how far away it is or how unjustified this fear is. Of all the
39 sounds that one may hear out in the county, a gunshot is not typically top of the decibel list.
40 These are not the things we want Sheriff Blackwood and his deputies focusing their time,
41 energy, and tax dollars on.
42
43 Without a meaningful and proven risk due to gun hobbyists exercising their rights on their own
44 lands, why does this proposed ordinance exist? I can only conclude that the ordinance lacks a
45 sound rationale and was proposed without full consideration of its negative impact on our
46 community. I hope that future efforts, if any, on this issue will be solidly grounded in real data
47 and inclusive input. As it stands, it is my opinion and that of many others that this proposal
48 needs major overhaul, if not scrapped altogether.
49
50 Again, thank you for your time.
13
1
2 Darin Knapp
3 5407 spring House Lane
4 Chapel Hill, NC 27516
5 darin @ramblerillfarm.com
6
7 Charlie Brown said he felt the proposed ordinance brings a lot of bad optics to Orange
8 County. He said this is crazy and the BOCC is so disconnected from northern Orange County.
9 He said it is shameful they are here today and every deputy will be in danger, if this ordinance
10 passes.
11 Keith Kirkland said he is a life-long native of Orange County. He said he cannot support
12 this ordinance because there are too many loose ends in it. He said he is a firm believer in the
13 second amendment. He said the BOCC needs to understand the rights of all of the residents in
14 Orange County. He said as a gun owner, he ensures the safety of those around him, and those
15 who are fearful of firearms should be educated. He asked the Board to vote no on this item and
16 to hold a public hearing on this issue. He said he knows Orange County is changing and even
17 a compromise would be better, with all opinions being included.
18 Chad Resnik said this proposed ordinance stems from a complaint. He said he has a
19 berm and in order to build a new berm, he would have to divert an easement that is watershed
20 protected. He said he is a Department of Defense Instructor, and heavily involved with multiple
21 areas of firearm training. He said this is not a positive or safe thing to propose. He said the
22 basis of responsible gun ownership is that every shooter is liable for every round that comes out
23 of their gun. He said he does not want people to have to listen to gunfire and to focus on the
24 individual responsibility that all have when firing weapons.
25 Lauren Resnik said she and her family live on 18 acres and live in northern Orange
26 County. She said they are highly trained and use their land for shooting. She said shooting
27 should be done both smartly and safely; do not shoot close to your neighbors. She disagreed
28 with the Board on the time limitations in the proposed ordinance. She said the BOCC works for
29 the American people. She said she and her husband teach night classes to Special Forces and
30 the military on their property and the BOCC is seeking to restrict their training. She said the
31 County needs to back off of their second amendment rights, as this proposed ordinance is
32 illegal. She said she will make this a bigger issue if necessary and the BOCC does not
33 supersede the constitution.
34 Missy Foy said she agreed with a lot of what the previous speaker said. She said she is
35 an experienced shooter. She said a very important issue for her, that a lot of those in
36 attendance this evening are not facing, is the reality she faces daily from a very dangerous
37 neighbor. She said she sees dead animals being shot, she has shots in her house, and she
38 has been harassed. She said owning a gun does not make someone a responsible person,
39 and there is no law in Orange County that addresses this issue of her neighbor shooting over
40 and through her property. She agrees that this proposed ordinance is over the top but she is in
41 fear for her life at times because of irresponsible gun owners and asked the BOCC to do
42 something to help her. She said she wanted protection.
43 Bob Foy said she said it all.
44 Chris Weaver said not to table this item for later but rather make a decision this evening.
45 He said there has been single party rule in this County for over a hundred years and if the
46 BOCC wants to pass the ordinance, it should do so and see what happens. He said this is not
47 about hunting but rather it is about recreational shooting. He said a work group is unnecessary,
48 just vote on it or kill it. He said the Lenoir County ordinance is a good example and would help
49 people like Ms. Foy. He asked if the Planning Board is using common core math standards.
14
1 Dallas Taylor said he is concerned about this ordinance, as it curtails the rights of those
2 that do not own big properties, or are not rich. He said he is opposed to the ordinance. He said
3 if this ordinance is passed, the range where he, and many others practice would have to move
4 or be shut down. He said he understands and is willing to be considerate, but at the same time
5 he wants to be able to exercise his rights. He said law enforcement needs areas to train, and to
6 be able to train their own kids. He said turkey shoots would be cut off if the time limitations
7 were imposed.
8 David Brown said he has been in Orange County for 33 years and his children were
9 trained to shoot. He reviewed all the elements of the ordinance which he found to be
10 unacceptable. He said one of the things that makes rural Orange County the way it is are the
11 people and their customs. He would prefer they do away with the ordinance entirely. He has
12 forwarded the proposed ordinance to the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Institute for
13 Legislative Action.
14 Don O'Leary said the proposed ordinance is not constitutional and should be thrown out.
15 He said the second amendment was put in the constitution in case of a tyrannical government,
16 so that the citizens could protect themselves.
17 Jack Hunnell said he farms 25 acres and he likes to hunt and fish on this property. He
18 said his neighbor has 155 acres, and the State regulates a lot of these. He said Chair McKee
19 should have gathered more input from broader areas to involve them in this discussion. He
20 asked the BOCC to table the issue until further discussion can occur.
21 Larry Roberts said the BOCC needs to decide what it is trying to accomplish. He said
22 he too reviewed the abstract information and he did not find a situation or complication, but
23 rather he only found resolution. He asked if the goal is safety, noise or firearms regulations.
24 He said he shoots for several reasons, including shooting varmints, such as copperhead
25 snakes, in his barn in order to protect his grandchildren when they visit, as well as his
26 neighbors. He said the ordinance is confusing as to what is restrictive and what is not
27 restrictive. He asked if the BOCC has considered the funds it will take to enforce this
28 ordinance, both for additional law enforcement, as well as litigation. He said do not dismiss
29 these concerned citizens as northern Orange gun owners but rather consider them to be
30 concerned citizens that can help keep this county safe.
31 Brad Burton said most of his points have been addressed. He is a life-long resident of
32 Orange County and was taught to be a responsible gun owner on three acres of land. He said
33 these skills, and the opportunity to practice them, helped to shape his life. He said he wants to
34 teach his son the same life lessons on the three acres that his family now lives on. He said this
35 proposal imposes on his rights as a gun owner as well as his second and ninth amendment
36 rights.
37 Rick Perry said BOCC meetings do not start before 7:00 p.m. in order to allow working
38 citizens the opportunity to attend. He said this same common sense should apply to this
39 ordinance. He said if one has a job and does not get home till 6:00 pm, one cannot practice
40 shooting with this proposal. He said he has a berm, and the proposed regulations are
41 excessive and unreasonable. He said if the proposed signage is put in place, the properties will
42 look ridiculous. He said areas available for shooting are decreasing rapidly and asked if
43 Orange County has a place for law enforcement to practice shoot.
44 Steve Hopper said he is from Efland and intended to ask if any harmful incidents had
45 preceded this proposed ordinance. He said the earlier speaker enlightened him of issues that
46 are problematic. He said he greatly empathizes with her situation and believed it should be
47 addressed, but this ordinance is no help to her in his opinion. He said the concepts in the
48 proposed ordinance are excessive. He said he does not hunt but he grows crops and he has
49 authority from the State to kill animals that attack his crops. He said he finds enforcement of
50 this ordinance is another issue. He said he is in favor of rejecting this.
15
1 Jerry Snipes passed on the opportunity to speak.
2 Neal Galloway said he bought his property so he could practice target shooting and he
3 said his neighbors shoot with him. He said they do not shoot on Sundays, and he built a berm
4 without being told to do so. He said he teaches children responsible marksmanship and in
5 order to do so, one must have a place to teach. He said responsible ownership is possible and
6 those who are responsible need to be encouraged to pass this education along to others. He
7 said this discussion is happening because of the minority of people in the County that abuse
8 their gun privileges. He said his policy is to shoot for 1.5 hours which seems reasonable. He
9 said the ordinance is not necessary, is burdensome and should be rejected.
10 Roger Moore said he is a 33 year Orange County resident and a retired Durham police
11 officer. He said he has to qualify once a year for his concealed to carry. He said he only
12 learned about this meeting this afternoon and the County should be more effective in its
13 communication. He said this ordinance is more of a government overreach into the property
14 rights of its residents. He said the lady that spoke earlier about her dangerous neighbor does
15 not have an issue of target practice. He said there are certain traditions and heritages and he
16 moved to Orange County for these attributes; but now Orange County has surpassed Durham
17 County in overreaching. He said the issue about using one meeting location is a good one, with
18 which he agrees. He suggested the new slogan for the County: "Orange County, where you'll
19 be taxed for life".
20 Joe Phelps said Hillsborough is the County seat and in other counties most meetings
21 would occur in that location. He said he does not like the proposed ordinance. He said he has
22 been in real estate for 30 years and no one has asked him to sell a home because of target
23 shooting occurring nearby. He said rather people seek to buy properties because they will be
24 able to shoot. He said on the January 21st BOCC meeting agenda, there was a place for public
25 hearings, but noted the phrase "no additional comments accepted". He said the entire process,
26 and exactly what is being decided upon, is confusing. He said the public is not being clearly
27 informed.
28 Catherine Taylor said when she looked at the proposed ordinance, she wondered if the
29 North Carolina Wildlife Commission had been consulted, especially where it conflicts with their
30 policies. She said if this is about regulating noise or commercial sites, then the ordinance
31 should be rewritten to reflect this. She said this should be reflective of other noise ordinances.
32 She noted as trees continue to be cut down, more noise will be heard. She said she does not
33 support the ordinance.
34 Polly Dornette said she is a shooter and she suggested that training opportunities would
35 be taken away with this ordinance. She said she is a concealed carry permit holder, and she
36 needs to train. She said they bought property in Orange County in order to have land on which
37 to practice. She said Wake County has a great indoor practice range, and perhaps Orange
38 County should provide that same amenity. She said the issue with the unruly neighbor is not a
39 practice range issue.
40 Riley Ruske said he a Vietnam veteran and a resident of Orange County. He and his
41 family understand firearms and feel they are obliged to defend the constitution. He said this
42 issue was poorly publicized and is an assault on the property and constitutional rights of
43 Orange County citizens. He said if the BOCC adopts this ordinance a lot of law-abiding citizens
44 will be turned into criminals. He said if this is done, the BOCC will have failed at upholding the
45 constitution.
46 Alan Mauer asked if there was a reason that prompted the creation of this ordinance.
47 Chair McKee said he will speak to this question after public comment.
48 Alan Mauer said he has lived here his entire life. He said this is not about hunting but
49 rather about the right to defend himself and to train to defend himself. He said the BOCC does
50 not get to pick what rights are upheld. He said this issue is about a lack of understanding of
16
1 firearms. He suggested the community may wish to provide more training and education, so
2 that firearms are better understood. He encouraged the Board to vote no tonight.
3 William Heard said he is a doctor. He said this is a matter of culture, and in Orange
4 County there are many different cultures. He said people have strong feelings about this issue
5 in one-way or another. He said personal feelings must be put aside, and to recognize
6 indigenous groups, as well as these gun owners. He said there are some technological
7 solutions that could address noise complaints.
8 Craig Lloyd said he is a life-long resident of Orange County, and the Director of the
9 North Carolina National Guard Association. He said he is unsure if the Planning Department
10 did enough research on this item. He said House bill 562, state law 14-409.46, says that if one
11 has shot on one's property for sport, prior to any new regulation or ordinance, one is
12 grandfathered in.
13 Lindy Galloway referred to the former speaker who had a bad neighbor and said the
14 countryside does have problems of drug and alcohol abuse as well. She said she has a
15 shooting range on her property, which she regularly utilizes as she wants to be well trained.
16 She said crack heads have been on her property making threats but run when the Sheriff's
17 department arrives; however, the threats resume once the Sheriff's department leaves. She
18 said now that everyone knows she can shoot, those previously harassing her now stay away.
19 She said she wished the Board would vote no or throw the ordinance out entirely.
20 Cheryl Allison said for the Board to look at the packed room and hallway as well as to
21 consider all the people who could not be here tonight. She said these people are law-abiding
22 citizens asking the Board to vote this down.
23
24 Public comments via email:
25
26 To the Orange County Commissioners' Board,
27
28 As an 18 year resident of Orange County, NC I want to go on record stating that I am against
29 the restrictions that are being proposed concerning shooting firearms. In my opinion it's not a
30 fair proposal and has not been publicized enough for accurate consideration.
31
32 Thank you for your service and consideration and please contact me at any time.
33
34 Tony Holleman
35 530 Jericho Rd.
36 Hillsbourough, NC 27278
37 919-644-0868
38
39
40 A law will never give me the right to do what is wrong. So you mean to tell me if someone
41 breaks in my house between the hours of 6 PM and 10 AM I cannot pull the trigger to protect
42 my family because I might disturb someone else down the road picking flowers in her garden.
43
44 My Second Amendment protects me from any of the Unlawful discriminating laws Orange
45 County might be trying to write and pass. People have bled and died in order to protect this
46 right that you selfishly and cowardly here are trying to take away. I pay taxes. Stay the hell off
47 my land and stay out of my personal business ...this should not be hard for you to do nor
48 understand which you protect and stand for the killing of 4000 innocent children each and every
49 day in their mothers womb while screaming stay out of their vagina.
50
17
1 I paid for this land you didn't. I pay taxes to help you pay for yours.
2
3 Rodney Davis
4 Efland, NC
5 Proud law-abiding tax payer and gun owner
6
7
8 Another unenforceable, unneeded regulation to stifle the rights of the people. I never cease to
9 be amazed at the worthless drivel that springs forth from those who believe their election gives
10 them God like powers to dictate how others should conduct their daily activities.
11
12 Orange County was once a good place to live but now it has become an over regulated and
13 over taxed suburb of Chapel Hill.
14
15 The time has come to say enough is enough. I am vehemently opposed to this proposed
16 intrusion on my rights as a property owner. I do not need you to tell me how to conduct myself
17 responsibly on my property regarding the discharge of firearms.
18
19 Harold Dorsett
20
21 Dear Orange County Commissioners,
22
23 I am writing in regard to a current proposed Amendment, "Regulating the Discharge of
24 Firearms." Foremost and frankly, as a property owner and taxpayer in Orange County,
25 strongly oppose this amendment on virtually all aspects, and for good reasoning. As an avid
26 shooter and sportsman I see this amendment as unnecessary, over reaching, and unwarranted
27 in many ways.
28
29 First, let me say that I am all for firearm safety and the practices of safe shooting. Any person
30 who pick-ups a firearm, in my opinion, has immediately signed a binding contract that requires
31 them to protect the safety of everyone and everything around them.
32
33 To address this amendment, again I repeat, that I am strongly opposed, and for good
34 reasoning. The requirements of this amendment will burden a large majority of shooters with its
35 extremely cumbersome conditions. The amount of land required, under the approval of this
36 amendment, will automatically prevent many from being able to shoot regularly on their own
37 property, again their own property. Property that a person has worked hard for, paid taxes on,
38 and incurred many types of expenses to maintain. That, to me, is overly restrictive.
39
18
1 Now, I see the insertion of the backstop rule is intended to address this by providing options to
2 landowners, yet again, this is quite a burden for the average person. To install such a backstop
3 is not only very expensive, but restrictive. You now have created a situation where a person will
4 definitely incur significant expenses as well as the requirement of at least one permit to erect
5 such a structure, regardless of the type of material selected to construct said backstop. Current
6 county permitting and site plan ordinances affect the erection of such a structure. In turn, surely
7 at some point in time in the future, there will be a "need" for a new inspection process to now
8 come and inspect shooting backstops to ensure proper construction and maintenance, again at
9 a cost to the private landowner and tax payers alike. Not to mention, the requirement of such a
10 structure affects an owners rights of enjoyment of use and perceived property value, not only
11 the property on which the structure resides, but the surrounding properties as well (who wants
12 to look at a big mound of something whether on their own property or their neighbors?).
13 Addressing the "allowed shooting hours;" again burdensome, for several reasons. Being fully
14 aware that the amount of shooters who engage in shooting after sunlight hours is limited, there
15 are those of us that do just that. Current State and State WRC regulations allowing for the
16 hunting of Coyotes at night. To the best of my knowledge, Orange County does not have an
17 ordinance preventing this. To be able to effectively hunt at night, one must have the right
18 equipment and said equipment must be calibrated in the conditions in which it will be used (i.e.
19 after daylight hours). This would effectively give me, and those like me, approximately less than
20 60 minutes, for only several months out of the year to calibrate our night hunting equipment
21 properly, with the hope that it remains calibrated throughout the remainder of the year. Let me
22 add that, the coyote problem in Orange County, and the State, is an ongoing issue and by the
23 accounts of many sportsman and land owners alike, is continually worsening. It has been show
24 in other states, and likely one of the main reasons the hunting of coyotes at night has been
25 allowed in North Carolina, that night hunting of coyotes is a very effective tool in controlling the
26 population of such a nuisance predator. I do not see how this amendment will not directly affect
27 those of us who participate in the hunting coyotes (and other game) at night. While I am aware
28 that there is a clause in this amendment that explicitly states that it is does not impact or
29 regulate hunting activities, it does not permit me to calibrate my hunting equipment as needed
30 for said activities. In essence, my neighbor calls law enforcement, because I am calibrating my
31 equipment at night, I am fined because I am not technically involved in a hunting activity at the
32 time.
33
34
35 Now, I do see the inserted clause allowing for land owners to target shoot two or fewer days per
36 month simply not enough. Although, again, I am likely in the minority of shooters, I enjoy
37 target shooting quite regularly, much more often than two days of the month which this
38 amendment would restrict me to. Avid shooters and sportsmen such as myself are regularly
39 calibrating our equipment and shoot regularly to better our skills as enjoyment shooters and
40 sportsmen. A large reason for the ownership of my property is so that I can shoot, at distance,
41 on a regular basis. In addition, while I have never owned, shot, or even know where to acquire
42 "explosive shells," I do occasionally shoot, what may be referred to as an "explosive target."
43 Tannerite is a completely legal, two part compound, commonly sold at sporting goods stores
44 throughout the state and country. I see no reason why I should not be able to shoot at these
45 sorts of targets on my own property, provided that I am not endangering anyone around me.
46 These types of targets do not expel fireballs, harmful/hazardous substances, secondary
47 projectiles, and are not designed to be destructive. They simple "go `bang- when struck with
48 any standard centerfire rifle bullet. Again, I do not see any reason why I would not be allowed to
49 do this on my own private property, given that no one and nothing is being put in danger—a
50 hard thing to do with something that does nothing more than make a noise when hit.
19
1
2 Section "e," referring to the erectment of signs indicating that the discharge of firearms is
3 occurring raises several concerns as well. While at first glance this seems like a good idea and
4 common sense, let's back up and take another look at this. While at first glance this seems like
5 a good idea and common sense, let's back up and take another look at this. Erecting a sign
6 every 100ft seems reasonable, again at first glance. Aside, on my allowed two days of target
7 shooting does this still have to be done? Why would any reasonable gun safety advocate have
8 an issue with this you may ask? For one, expense. I own a large parcel in Orange County.
9 Having to erect a sign every 100ft around the perimeter of my property, calculates out to
10 approximately 100 signs. A few minutes of internet searching yields some pricing results. The
11 cost for durable (40 mil aluminum) signs, even in bulk, is over $11.00 per sign (plus
12 tax!) over $1100.00 just for signs.... Honestly, these signs should be reflective aluminum
13 since night shooting may occur, increasing that cost to over$18.50 per sign (now $1850+ not
14 including tax!). Then I have to purchase materials to mount the signs, at least another $100.00
15 (and that's being really conservative about it). After that, I have to maintain each sign, ensure
16 its upright, not missing, legible, etc. at all times. Wow. Not to mention, that this alone is an
17 advertisement that firearms are kept on this the property, a great piece of knowledge for
18 anyone interested in stealing something. Here's the other concern I have with this requirement.
19 It is well known that "No Trespassing," laws are limited in their reach. My understanding is that
20 even if a property is labeled, "No Trespassing," to a reasonable extent, a trespasser can simply
21 state that they didn't see the sign and almost alleviate themselves of incrimination. My
22 understanding is that this is one of the reasons why I, as a property owner, must maintain a
23 large insurance policy on my property, in the event that I am sued for damages because
24 someone was hurt or otherwise on my property— even if it was clearly and reasonably marked
25 with "No Trespassing" signs. Which is the reason that it is not posted currently, it does me no
26 good to do so.
20
1 Where I'm going with this is, if the county is going to require that I erect and maintain said
2 signs, of a certain type, in a certain manner, for the protection of others, then will the county
3 step in and protect me from civil and criminal lawsuits in the event of an injury or death? In
4 other words, since the county is requiring me as a land owner and shooter to do this, then it
5 seems only logical that the county has removed my responsibility and liability for injury or death
6 (criminal and civil) due to firearm activity. Since the property is clearly marked (by county
7 regulation) then the argument of "I didn't see it," by a Trespasser should thereby be null and
8 void, as the county has recommended, required, and concluded that this is more than adequate
9 to prevent wrongful injury or death to those unknowing of the discharge of firearms on said
10 property. That in turn, puts a tremendous legal burden on the county if something like this
11 should occur.
12 In addition, this amendment could potentially and inadvertently pave the way for further
13 amendments that incorporate even more cumbersome restrictions. As I stated earlier, for me
14 and many others, it is very foreseeable the installment of an inspection process for backstops
15 or properties where private landowners shoot on a regular basis (see previous paragraph and
16 apply accordingly). Could this amendment lead into further restrictions on shooting times and
17 dates? No shooting on certain holidays? Noise ordinance restrictions? Excessive calls to law
18 enforcement for perceived violations? In many ways, this amendment seems to burden the
19 average land owner and shooter with requirements that aren't even as strict as they are for
20 currently operated for-profit shooting ranges, according to the existing regulations.
21
22 With those things said, let me attempt to reason through the perceived need for such a
23 restrictive amendment. In my mind I can foresee where the perceived need for this amendment
24 came from. Likely a "backyard shooter" or shooters who are constantly and recklessly engaging
25 in the unsafe discharging of firearms, likely, in an area of higher population density. No shock
26 there, I've seen it myself and was simply left to shake my head at the complete ignorance and
27 stupidity of such actions. With the proposal of this amendment, and this sort of situation, my
28 thoughts take off into how the county could deal with this type of situation without restricting the
29 rights of so many others. We have all seen too many times in the history of legislation, where
30 good intentions with a law often restrict many that it was never intended to affect. Why let the
31 actions of a few"bad apples spoil it for the rest of us," one could ask. So I question the county
32 about such a situation with the laws and tools that is already has available to it. If someone
33 were constantly shooting, in close proximity, to others at "all hours of the night", wouldn't that
34 constitute as a noise violation? Could someone who engaged in this sort of behavior, for
35 valueless reasons, be considered to be disturbing the peace? Especially if it is something that
36 happens in a regular manner and easily definable as a deliberately harassing gesture. If
37 someone is shooting in an unsafe manner (firing on to someone else's property or discharging
38 a firearm without means for ensuring the safety of others), wouldn't that be considered reckless
39 endangerment or better yet criminal negligence? Surely both carry a higher penalty and fine
40 than a simple misdemeanor, which I would much rather see someone charged with for this type
41 of behavior. As I repeat, any person who pick-ups a firearm, in my opinion, has immediately
42 signed a binding contract that requires them to protect the safety of everyone and everything
43 around them. I mean that in a literal sense. Any responsible shooter knows several things right
44 off the bat; treat every firearm as if it were loaded, keep
45
21
1 the firearm pointed in a safe direction at all times, know your target and what is beyond it,
2 understand the all function of the firearm before you pick it up, just to name a few. To disregard
3 these basic fundamentals of firearm safety, in my opinion is reckless endangerment and
4 negligence, extremely dangerous negligence. I fail to believe that the county, its law
5 enforcement, and its court system are incapable of dealing with negligent, reckless, and
6 endangering shooters without this new amendment. If called to a scene, without this new
7 amendment, is a law enforcement officer incapable of making an arrest for a crime for the type
8 of actions being discussed, without the newly proposed amendments? Is our court system
9 incapable of preparing and presenting a case that will bypass reasonable doubt for these types
10 of actions, without the newly proposed amendment? I fail to believe that to be true. Our
11 municipal and county law enforcement agents are trained, skilled and experienced enough to
12 handle situations in which the reckless discharge of firearms occurs. Our court system,
13 prosecution attorneys, judges, and citizen selected juries are fully capable making sound
14 indictments, cases, rulings, and verdicts if and when a person or persons is/are accused of the
15 reckless discharging of firearms within the county under our current laws and regulations.
16 In closing, would like to thank all of you who have taken the time to read this at length and, in
17 your requirement as a public official, done your due diligence in attempting to understand my
18 reasoning for my stance on this issue. While I am in complete support of safe firearm practices,
19 I cannot, in good conscience, support this amendment or legislation of a similar manner. I find
20 the proposals in this amendment to be overly restrictive, undue, and unwarranted. There is no
21 doubt that, if this legislation were passed, that it would greatly restrict the freedoms and
22 personal property usage rights of citizens such as myself and others. While I am sure this
23 legislation is being proposed for good intentions and, more than likely, that events have
24 occurred which have compelled this legislation to be written, it is in fact, unnecessary. Those
25 who do not practice safe shooting can surely be dealt with using current county laws and
26 ordinances, without restricting the rights of those who regularly exhibit safety, responsibility, and
27 consideration when it comes to the discharging of firearms on their own property. Please do not
28 hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or simply wish to discuss this issue with me
29 further; I am always available and willing to support my community.
30
31 Sincerely,
32 Charles Davis
33 919-697-1725
34 LRFARMS27572 @gmail.com
35
36
37 Dear Orange County Commissioners,
38
39 I am writing to you concerning item 7a on the agenda for the meeting scheduled on 2/16/2016,
40 Amendment to the Orange County Code of Ordinances-Regulating the Discharge of Firearms.
41 As a newcomer to Orange County, I do not know the history of this amendment, and as I only
42 became aware of it yesterday, I have not had time to fully explore the ramifications of the
43 amendment.
44
45 However, after reading it over, I am concerned that this amendment is unclear in its purpose,
46 and should be carefully revised with the input of all concerned parties, preferably following a
47 period of notification and public input.
48
49 Specifically, I am unclear if the purpose of this legislation is to enhance safety, reduce noise
50 pollution, prevent the operation of businesses (i.e., shooting ranges) in residential areas, or
22
1 merely to limit the rights of people like myself to safely enjoy an occasional round of target
2 shooting with my family/friends on my own private property.
3
4 The regulations are in many cases excessive. I will provide three examples, although I think the
5 entire amendment needs to be rewritten and clarified. First, the construction of a backstop 15
6 feet high and 30 feet deep is not necessary except for even the most powerful centerfire rifles,
7 (not to mention it may not be a good idea to use steel); the cost of such a backstop would allow
8 only the relatively wealthy to meet the requirement. Second, the posting of signs every 100 feet
9 is not necessary, as trespassing on private property is already prohibited; thus it is unclear what
10 the purpose of this part of the amendment would serve except to be a burden on anyone trying
11 to fulfill the requirements. Posting of signs on any property large enough to qualify for shooting
12 would not only be expensive, but in my neighborhood, would be unsightly, as almost everyone
13 shoots occasionally. And posting signs in the middle of farmland bordered by other farmland is
14 just a waste of time and money. I should also point out that I think this and many other pieces of
15 this amendment are essentially unenforceable. Finally, the blanket restriction of shooting
16 between 10:00 am and 6:00 pm, and the restriction of shooting to 2 days/month have no logical
17 or legal justification. We do not restrict golfers to only enjoy their hobby two days a month, nor
18 do we prohibit motorcycles, dirt bikes, and other noisy, equally dangerous activities to certain
19 hours. I work full time during the week, and according to this amendment, if I was to practice a
20 few rounds of target shooting with my .22 caliber rifle on 3 or 4 Sat. mornings, I could be
21 sentenced to 30 days in prison. Really? I do not think this was the initial intent of this
22 amendment, but it is the way the amendment currently reads.
23 In conclusion, I think there are many issues raised by this amendment. Instead of rushing to
24 pass a hastily designed piece of legislation that will be subjected to many challenges, I suggest
25 the board address each issue separately and carefully. In my reading of the amendment, those
26 issues would be the operation of a business in a residential area, reasonable safety
27 issues/concerns, and perhaps a noise restriction.
28
29 Based on the above, and many other issues I am sure others will raise, I respectfully urge you
30 to NOT approve this amendment until sufficient time has been allowed for the amendment to be
31 publicized, discussed in public forums, and studied carefully by legal experts.
32 While I would appreciate a written response outlining your thoughts on this matter, I also plan
33 on being in attendance at the meeting tonight to see how my concerns about this amendment
34 are addressed.
35
36 Sincerely,
37 Lawrence E. Ostrowski
38 Hurdle Mills, NC
39
40
41 All members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners, might I suggest an alternative
42 from what appears a punitive approach, e.g., forbidding, to an economic approach!
43
44 Using the material from the NRA's Shooting Range Services
45 (http://range.nra.orq/sourcebook.aspx) or similar guidance from the National Shooting Sports
46 Foundation, to ensure your new ordinance guidelines meet some semblance of standardization,
47 thus assuring those wishing to engage in firearm range activities do so following established
48 proven standards - citizens/corp failure to do so are then sanctioned and subject to punitive
49 activities, as warranted.
50
23
1 Further, ask your staff to do a search for a archery range anywhere within the NC area or even
2 near. Hint: (USAArchery site assistance: http://www.teamusa.orq/usa-archery/archers/iunior-
3 olympic-archery-development/find-a-load-club)
4
5 Now, please take a look at what the town of Newberry Fl. did after negotiating grants for their
6 community, http://eastonnewberrysportscomplex.com/
7
8 This is the thrust of my message ladies and gentlemen...have your staff do their homework and
9 see if you can take this complex issue and instead of a hodgepodge of legalese, change your
10 philosophy and work to put a plan to gather $$$ together in an all encompassing shooting sport
11 facility (Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, and Archery) and earn revenue from the facets of shooting sports
12 training, possible small equipment sales, and more to the point, tournament activity revenue,
13 both from participants to $$$ spent nearby in lodging, food, etc.
14
15 I ask a wee bit of trust, but wish to state I am qualified to discuss these aspects and am willing
16 to drive over from Eastern NC to privately meet with you and your staff as an interested party if
17 you believe such a meeting would be germane to your decision making process. Go well, and
18 good luck tonight as your meeting has been misrepresented by a myriad of disinterested
19 parties. signed: an interested party to development of shooting sports activities within NC
20
21 Jack Coyle
22
23
24 To Whom it May Concern,
25
26 I am unable to attend the meeting tonight regarding changes to regulations concerning the
27 discharge of firearms on private property. I moved to Orange County in April 2012 from Durham
28 city and live off of Pleasant Green Road. One of the main reasons that I moved to my 8.6 acre
29 property was because I enjoy recreational shooting and the previous owners had constructed
30 a shooting range on the back corner of the property. I always shoot safely and let my
31 neighbors know before a shooting session. I hear other people shooting nearby from time to
32 time and consider it part of living in the rural part of the county. If the proposed changes are
33 passed, I will no longer be able to shoot on my property. 8 acres of land is more than enough
34 land to allow safe shooting. Please feel free to read my comments at tonights meeting.
35
36 Sincerely,
37 Dr. Steadman Willis
38 5479 Sunfish lane
39 Durham, NC 27705
40
41
42 Orange County Commissioners,
43
44 Briefly about me, I have been a resident of Orange County for 61 years. I've owned a home
45 since 1978. I'm 61 years old and a firearms owner. I've lived at my current address since 1984
46 located in northern Orange County off Guess Rd. I have 5.5 acres of land, with a backstop for
47 target practice. It was expensive to build this backstop, but doesn't come close to your
48 proposed requirements.
49
24
1 Now I would like to make a few comments about the proposed ordnance regarding the
2 discharge of firearms in Orange County. I realize, and agree that adequate measures should
3 be taken to prevent an injury or worse from a stray bullet, but the amount of land and the
4 requirements of the backstop you propose for this ordnance are absurd. This alone displays a
5 total lack of knowledge of firearms and the ballistics of common rifle and handgun cartridges
6 and the requirements needed for an adequate backstop. I would hope the Commissioners
7 would educate themselves on both before implementing this ordnance. No one will go to the
8 expense to construct the proposed backstop, on a piece of land the size that will be required for
9 this, just to sight a scope in a few times a year, or target practice with a new firearm or to stay
10 proficient with a weapon for self defense. I think you already know that. That brings me to my
11 next point. I as well as you Commissioners know there are both pro and anti gun residents in
12 Orange County. Everyone has a right to feel as they wish regarding gun ownership. I sincerely
13 hope there is a justification for this extreme proposal other than anti gun ideology
14 and I'd like to know what that is. I would also ask the Commissioners to rethink this proposal as
15 is, and if we must have an ordinance one that looks at the entire county not just the Chapel Hill,
16 Carrboro and Hillsborough areas. This is a large county, with a lot of gun
17 and property owners living in rural areas. I'm sure a consensus can be reached to satisfy all
18 concerned.
19
20 Thank you for your time.
21
22 Regards:
23 William Overman
24 7711 Quail Hollow Dr.
25 Hillsborough, NC 27278
26 WWOVERAAOL.COM
27
28
29 Good afternoon-
30 I do not support the county's proposed firearm discharge regulations.
31 Take Care,
32 Tricia Prinzo
33
34
35 Dear Commissions,
36
37 I wish to register my opposition to the proposed Amendment to Orange County Code Of
38 Ordinance - Regulating Discharge of Firearms. This proposal would, in effect, prevent virtually
39 any Orange County resident from firing a firearm on their property. I own 10.6 acres in a rural
40 setting but could still not comply with the rules. I appreciate the need for safety in urban
41 settings, but this denies the rights of law-abiding citizens to safely and responsibly shoot in
42 almost all situations. It appears to be a back-door attempt to ban recreational shooting through
43 excessive regulation without going through due process and giving the public the chance to
44 vote on the matter.
45
46 Yours sincerely,
47
48 Julian Abery
49 1101 Walnut Hill Drive
50 Hillsborough
25
1
2
3
4 Dear BOCC,
5
6 All BOCC members should vote "No" on the proposed firearms ordinance at tonight's meeting.
7 The ordinance is far too restrictive and intrusive, and as Commissioner Renee Price said of the
8 proposal yesterday on the Facebook group Orange County Local, "We can do better."
9
10 I've perused the emails that others have sent (via the BOCC Google Group) to voice their
11 opposition to the ordinance, and I would like to second the many good points fellow Orange
12 County residents have already made:
13
14 1. The backstop requirements are overkill. I'm not aware of any ammunition that could
15 penetrate dirt to a depth of 30 feet.
16 2. The hours are too limited.
17 3. The property requirements are regressive. As I understand it, a recreational shooter would
18 need to own at least 8.5 acres (best case) and 90 acres (worst case) to comply with the
19 distance requirements. That has a disparate effect on those who live in a perfectly safe area to
20 shoot but can't afford that much property. I should think that this would be plainly stated in the
21 "Social Justice Impact."
22 4. The ordinance infringes on the livelihoods of those who are firearms instructors.
23 4. Most importantly: the ordinance has not received adequate public input.
24
25 I only saw one email that supported the ordinance, and that email was written by someone who
26 hadn't even bothered to read it.
27
28 Regarding the rumor about the meeting being closed session - I think that was initiated by
29 someone on Facebook with good intentions who misunderstood the notes on the first page of
30 the ordinance. I don't believe a "lie" was concocted to be maliciously spread. Although
31 understand Chairman McKee's need to set the record straight on Orange County Local this
32 morning, it is our job as citizens to hold you accountable. Sometimes we make mistakes.
33
34 Also, please keep the name of the Farmers Market Pavilion the way it is. I concur with Lisa
35 Pope's reasoning.
36
37 Sincerely,
38 Ashley DeSena
39 West Hillsborough
40
41
42 Hi folks,
43
44 I'm sure you're receiving quite a few of these -just my two cents:
45 The signage requirement is a good measure, and the idea of set times is a good one, but
46 should not be a fixed time. Instead, tie it to sunrise/sunset as the hunting rules do. What is a
47 fine shooting time in July might not make sense in January.
48
26
1 The backstop requirements are a good start, but leave a *lot* to be interpreted later. As it
2 reads it sounds ridiculously restrictive, but its all in the interpretation. Surely there are industry
3 standards for shooting ranges you could reference?
4
5 The 300-foot rule is reasonable. The 1000-foot rule is asinine. In a worst case scenario, with
6 "structures" at every property line, a person would have to be shooting in the dead center of a
7 90 acre square parcel to meet the guidelines. That makes no sense. Why require 1000
8 *behind* where the person is shooting? If its all about noise, thats addressed in the time of day
9 restrictions above. If its about bullet safely, 1000 feet behind the shooter makes no sense.
10 1000 feet in front of the shooter makes sense if they do not have an adequate backstop. If they
11 have a backstop as described in the proposed ordinance, 1000 is overkill.
12
13 Have fun tonight!
14
15 Bob Johnson
16 Owner, Madurobob's Luthiery
17 madurobob.com
18 facebook.com/MadurobobsLuthiery
19
20
21 I am completely in agreement with the proposed firearms ordinance. Every year I have to sit by
22 while our neighbors fire at birds and bird shot rains down on the roof of our house. I don't care if
23 he does it on his own property but I shouldn't have to tolerate it on mine.
24
25 Robin Royster
26
27
28 Commissioners:
29
30 Please allow me to comment on the agenda item regarding discharge of firearms. I feel that
31 this amendment as proposed is a heavy-handed answer to a local problem. As a landowner
32 and a part-time shooter, my normal target range is into a natural steep hill. This provides
33 a more than adequate backstop and a partial noise buffer. In my situation, and I suspect in
34 other persons as well, this section of property is close to one property line. If this amendment is
35 adopted as proposed, the fifty or so shots that I fire annually will become a criminal offense
36 while not causing any harm or disturbance. I urge you to table this proposal until you have
37 more information and citizen input.
38
39 Sincerely,
40
41 David Lewis
42 801 Arthur Minnis Rd
43 Hillsborough, N. C. 27278
44 919-929-8230
45
46
47 My name is Roy Coe. I was raised here in Orange County, but moved away after high school.
48 I spent 23 years in the military (17 years overseas and I'm Viet Nam Combat Veteran) and then
49 26 years working in the Space Agency, NASA. For the last 19 years, I had to work in the State
50 of California because of my NASA job and endure some of the toughest gun laws in the
27
1 country. I also spent 13 years in the Kern County Sheriff's Office as an unpaid volunteer. I
2 recently retired and decided to move back "home" because I miss my roots. Returning to NC to
3 get away from California seem to be the right choice. Now I find myself regretting my return to
4 Orange County.
5
6 My comments regarding this proposed ordinance: You are going to require the land owners to
7 have signs placed every 100 feet around the property and 300 feet inside the property line.
8 First, most of us property owners don't know the exact location of our property line, so how do
9 you propose to enforce this requirement? Are you going to survey our property for us to
10 provide the exact lines and then measure each of the many signs to ensure they are 300 feet
11 inside the line? Is the county going to supply the warning signs? Also, very few land owners
12 have enough property to comply with your requirements which makes this ordinance appear to
13 be an attack on lawful gun owners.
14
15 I agree that safety is paramount when discharging a firearm and an ordinance will provide some
16 guidelines to ensure that safety measures are in effect during those times that gun owners like
17 to target practice or "sight in" a hunting rifle...but I believe your proposal is much to extreme.
18 have read some alternate proposals that you have been provided to you. I urge you to consider
19 these proposals and not make this so difficult on us land and legal gun owners.
20
21 Thank you for your time.
22 Roy Coe
23
24
25 Dear Commissioners,
26
27 It has been brought to my attention, as an Orange county resident, that there is a proposed
28 ordinance to be discussed in regards to firearms discharge in the county today. As a taxpayer
29 feel the right to be heard. I am very opposed to any such ordinance and consider it an
30 infringement of my rights. This issue needs to be tabled until further research can be done. If
31 this nonsense passes today, you better believe our voice will be heard during the next election.
32
33 Best Regards,
34 Brian Call
35 Orange County Resident
36
37
38 I am a concerned citizen of Orange County. I will start by saying I have been in Orange County
39 all of my life (40 years). I have learned about the amendment to the code of Ordinances in
40 reference to using Fire Arms on PRIVATE property. From what I'm reading an individual will
41 basically have to own 8 acres of land with no structures on the land in order to use firearms for
42 recreational purposes. This is absolutely ridiculous! The liberal democrats of Chapel Hill are
43 slowly but surely ruining Orange County. We already have the highest property taxes in the
44 state and now you're going to to start telling owners of private property what they can and can't
45 do on THEIR land. People move out into the county for a reason, it's called freedom! My wife
46 and I will be entering the housing market in a few months. I can promise you if this passes I will
47 not be looking in Orange County, for the first time in my life I will moving out of Orange County.
48 I also understand that this a knee jerk reaction to a problem with a particular land owner in
49 Orange County. If that's the case there has to be some other way to deal with someone using
28
1 private land as a commercial firing range without infringing on the rights of EVERYONE. I surely
2 hope you will take this response into consideration. Thank you, Mike Hogan
3
4 Mike Hogan
5
6
7 I oppose the ordinance as it now stands. Please table this until more conversation with the
8 public (again) can be entertained.
9
10 Rachel Phelps Hawkins
11 Landowner in Orange County
12 This is my personal opinion — not indicative of any email reference address or my employer.
13
14
15 To: Orange County Commissioners,
16 My name is Michael Miles. I am a resident of Orange County and I want to clearly express my
17 opposition to the proposed amendment 7-a to Orange County Code of Ordinances — Regulating
18 the Discharge of Firearms.
19
20 I am opposed to this amendment or any amendment with similar intent to restrict or regulate the
21 use of firearms at the county level. We have adequate regulation of firearms at the State and
22 Federal levels and do not need more regulation in this area from the county.
23 Thank you.
24
25 Michael Miles
26 6721 Union Grove Church Rd.
27 Hillsborough, NC 27278
28
29
30 I will not be able to attend the meeting tonight, but I OBJECT to the majority of this proposed
31 ordinance.
32
33 A couple main objections:
34 1. If the distances regulating the design of the berm are followed, the required distance of 1000
35 ft from an occupied structure is unnecessary.
36 2. The requirement for signage ever 100 ft along the property line is RIDICULOUS. If I have
37 firearms, I am NOT going to put up a sign that advertises such! Nobody driving by needs to
38 know that! I will inform my neighbors, but I am not putting up a ridiculous sign every 100'.
39
40 Steve Vanderlinden
41 4206 Hope Valley Dr
42 Hillsborough, NC
43
44
45 Dear Commissioners,
46
47 Thank you for your time, I will be unable to attend the Feb 16th meeting on the new ordinance
48 that is being brought forward. I have been an Orange County resident since birth and an active
49 sportsman since a very young age in my life. I live on 1.4 acres in rural Orange County, if
50 read this correctly I cannot shoot my guns, both used for personal protection and for hunting,
29
1 because I have houses within 1000' of my house. I don't shoot a lot but when I do I have always
2 used the skills taught during hunter education class and common sense. As long as I am
3 shooting into a low area on my own property (no chance for the bullet to travel further than I
4 want) what is the problem. I am one of the few public service members that can afford to still
5 live in Orange Co and if you run us out who will provide public safety? I am living in the house
6 my grand parents built when they came to Orange County and I love serving the citizens of
7 Orange County just as you do. I ask that you take some time to review this matter and
8 understand that one bad resident (shooter) does not represent all the citizens of Orange County
9 and we the people elect you to serve all of Orange County.
10
11 Thank you for your time and consideration to do what is right.
12
13 Scott Hackler
14 Resident of the Efland Community
15
16
17 To: Orange County Board of County Commissioners
18
19 From: Mary Darlene Yates
20 Robert Terry Woods
21
22 This email is in response to the scheduled meeting of February 16th, 2016 regarding
23 amendment to the Code of Ordinances regarding Discharge of Firearms. As an owner of
24 property in Orange County, I strongly disagree with any amendments to the Code of
25 Ordinances which limits or prohibits the use of firearms on private property. My property is not
26 within city limits and was bought because I do not wish to live in or near a town or city and be
27 subjected to all the restrictions which are placed upon my freedoms. I have been a resident of
28 Orange County for many years and my father's family has owned land here since the early
29 1900s. One of the parcels I own is part of that land and is very precious to me. There are
30 already too many restrictions in this county and I most certainly am against any more being
31 added.
32
33 I lived on Palmer's Grove Road, when my land was going to be made part of Eno State Park
34 and had property owners not banded together, the land would have gone to the park. I also
35 remember when Orange County was going to place a dump close to my home in northern
36 Orange County on Guess Road, Rougemont (Orange County) NC. Once again landowners
37 banded together and fought it. There is now a park where the dump was going to be.
38 remember that when asked where the construction trash would primarily be coming from; the
39 answer was Chapel Hill. Chapel Hill seems to run this county, but there are those who would
40 love for them to form their own county and leave the rest of us alone. If you want to live where
41 you will not hear gunfire or be near an area where firearms are discharged, move to
42 town, preferably the town of Chapel Hill. In both of the above incidences, the county of
43 Orange tried quietly to slip these past the citizens it would affect.
44 Once again, I find myself looking at the same scenario, just a different subject. I have my
45 conceal/carry permit and target practice on my land. There are "No Trespassing" signs posted
46 and that should be sufficient. I strongly suggest that you withdraw your proposal to the above
47 amendment.
48
49 Sincerely,
50
30
1 Mary Darlene Yates
2 mdarlene317 @yahoo.com
3 Owner:
4 3127 Yates Road
5 Hillsborough, NC 27278
6 &
7 6421 New Sharon Church Road
8 Rougemont, NC 27572
9
10 Robert Terry Woods
11 rterrywoods34607ayahoo.com
12 Owner:
13 3806 Stoneycreek Road
14 Chapel Hill, NC 27514
15
16
17 Good morning
18 I'm sure you know what this is about, I feel like we have way too many regulations on us now,
19 don't tell me what and when I can do certain things on my property.
20
21 I'm sure there has been some complaints in the last few years because of the increase in
22 firearms purchases, caused by the fear of the increased government control and restrictions.
23 So, please take into consideration my complaint and many other private landowners in the
24 county. No new government restrictions.
25
26 Thank you
27 Brad Walker
28 919-730-9327
29
30
31 Hello Commissioners,
32
33 My two cents:
34
35 I am one of the planning representatives for Bingham. I agree that people should have more
36 time to digest the proposal and weigh in on it if they want to.
37
38 Comparing the Proposed Orange County Ordinance to the Lenoir Ordinance they are very
39 similar with Orange County's addition of some key points;
40
41 1) The setback buffers which are common sense safety measures, but are made
42 redundant by criminal and civil penalties
43 2) Regulations for indoor ranges which are also made redundant by criminal and civil
44 penalties
45 3) Time of day restrictions
46 4) The exclusion of "explosive targets". These targets are unregulated by the BATF and
47 likely magnify the number of noise complaints. Their effects should be covered by the
48 noise ordinance, but it's sometimes hard to locate and enforce..
49 5) Sign posting regulations which are about the same as posting "no hunting" signs, as
50 recall the discussion.
31
1
2 The issue boils down to people being considerate of their neighbors and reasonable when
3 exercising their rights. I do not think that an ordinance will be successful regulating this
4 behavior, nor do I think zoning enforcement will be responding to complaints.
5
6 To me, this issue is probably best left to the Sheriff's department who are familiar with firearms
7 safety and are well trained to judge a situation. Sheriff Blackwood may want additional time
8 restrictions or the exclusion of binary explosive targets in his deputies nuisance toolkit, but if he
9 does I am confident that he will say so.
10
11 -Tony
12
13 Dear Chairman McKee,
14
15 As I am sure you already know. The proposed restrictions to the safe discharge of firearms are
16 making quite a stink amongst the county, at least the longtime resident rural folks.
17
18 As I see it, as proposed, this ordinance is just another way to limit the law abiding safe target
19 shooter from using his land as he sees fit. I agree there needs to be some boundaries and
20 rules set in place, but for the majority of shooters this is not a problem and is being done
21 currently. I understand there have been issues, and those not accustomed to country living are
22 bothered by the noise and the guns.
23
24 I ask you cordially, to consider the Sheriff's recommendations to the Board and vote with
25 common sense as you approach this issue.
26
27
28 Orange County Commissioners,
29
30 I am a resident of Orange County and would like to express my strong opposition to the
31 proposed firearms discharge ordinance to be discussed at the February 16 meeting. The only
32 proposed regulations that I would find to be of practical benefit to the citizens of Orange County
33 are the ones regarding safety practices, including c) 7,8,9, & 10 and d) 3,4, & 5....but these are
34 all basic common sense items that should not need an ordinance to be practiced by any
35 responsible individual. All other proposed regulations I find to be extremely and unfairly
36 excessive and in fact unnecessary to ensuring the safety of the citizens of Orange County.
37
38 I am not aware of the background regarding this proposal and what prompted it to be written,
39 but I suspect it was perhaps prompted due to a small number of isolated incidents which I do
40 not believe should warrant over-regulating the overwhelming majority of Orange County citizens
41 that already voluntarily engage in safe shooting practices. I cannot support penalizing the
42 majority for the actions of a few.
43
44 Please vote to disapprove this proposed ordinance. Thank you for taking the time to hear
45 and consider my thoughts about this matter.
46
47 Sincerely,
48
49 Kenneth Snyder
50 109 South Lloyd's Dairy Rd
32
1 Efland, NC 27243
2
3 Scott Tutor
4 Orange Grove Community
5 Bingham Township
6
7
8
9 Earl I heard this weekend that the county has had the county Attorney start working on a new
10 law that will not let anyone in the county that owns land fire there guns on there own property
11 more than once a month and only between the hours of like 10: 00 am and 3:00 pm is there any
12 truth to this. Please Reply Thanks Jerry
13 Jerry Baity
14 To: Earl McKee, Chairman, Orange County Board of Commissioners
15 From: F. Paul Valone, president, Grass Roots North Carolina
16 Re: Amendment to Orange County Code Of Ordinances Regulating Discharge Of Firearms
17
18 Dear Commissioner McKee:
19
20 We have been advised by several members that Orange County intends to change its
21 ordinance regarding discharge of firearms. They have also advised us that the board of
22 commissioners intends to do so in a meeting closed to the public.
23
24 In fact, one member forwarded the attached image of the Action Agenda Item Abstract which
25 appears to show it as item 7—a, for action on February 16, 2016. I also note that the public
26 hearing block contains an "N", presumably indicating no public hearing on the issue.
27
28 As you are no doubt aware, NCGS § 143-318.9 (our "open meetings" law) stipulates:
29
30 "Whereas the public bodies that administer the legislative, policy-making, quasi-judicial,
31 administrative, and advisory functions of North Carolina and its political subdivisions
32 exist solely to conduct the people's business, it is the public policy of North Carolina that
33 the hearings, deliberations, and actions of these bodies be conducted openly."
34
35 In fact, public bodies may go into closed session only for the purposes enumerated in § 143-
36 318.11, which also says:
37
38 "A public body may hold a closed session only upon a motion duly made and adopted at
39 an open meeting. Every motion to close a meeting shall cite one or more of the
40 permissible purposes listed in subsection (a) of this section."
41
42 I would also urge you to become familiar with another modification of North Carolina statutes
43 which became effective on December 1, 2015 when N.C.G.S. § 14-415.23 was modified under
44 Section 15 of Session Law 2015-195 (formerly H.B. 562) to include a new subsection (e), to
45 wit:
46
47 "A person adversely affected by any ordinance, rule, or regulation promulgated or
48 caused to be enforced by any unit of local government in violation of this section may
49 bring an action for declaratory and injunctive relief and for actual damages arising
50 from the violation. The court shall award the prevailing party in an action brought
33
1 under this subsection reasonable attorneys'fees and court costs as authorized by
2 law."
3
4 Please advise us if we are in error. Otherwise, I would strongly suggest you convene an open
5 session at which a motion could be made to go into closed session only for statutorily
6 permissible reasons. I can be reached at the email above or at 704-907-9206. I eagerly await
7 your reply.
8
9
10 My name is Satina Bass, resident of 109 Drake Dr. Mebane, NC 27302 Orange County. I am in
11 support of the Amendment to regulate the discharge of firearms in a residential neighborhood.
12 My husband and I have been in our home for 11 years. We have 2 little children that enjoy
13 playing in their yard. We are very uncomfortable letting our children play in their own yard due
14 to neighbors shooting firearms on a regular basis. I would ask that you really consider the
15 elimination of discharging firearms in communities where the properties are so close in
16 proximity. Thank you in advance for your consideration of our request.
17
18 Sincerely,
19
20 Curtis and Satina Bass
21
22
23 My family is very much in favor of an amendment to regulate the discharge of firearms on
24 private property.
25
26 We are out in the county but we are in a development. Even though we have acre lots, when
27 neighbors fire guns in their yard, it sounds like they are in our front yard. It's very dangerous
28 also. You can't relax at all with the "boom, boom, boom" and it scares my dog. It's very
29 unsettling.
30
31 They feel that they have the right to fire the guns since they are out in the county and on their
32 own property, but noise is an invasion of privacy. When the noise is loud or repetitive, it can
33 wear on your nerves. At certain decibels, the noise can be hazardous to health.
34
35 So, I do appreciate the possibility of an amendment to regulate the activity.
36
37 Sincerely,
38 Jackie Spivey
39 104 Drake Drive
40 Mebane, NC 27302
41
42
43 Hello.
44
45 I have seen a lot of discussions around a gun ordinance in Orange County that would limit the
46 use of firearms (target practice) on private property. I fully support the idea of removing the right
47 to target practice, especially when those doing so live in subdivisions or in close proximity of
48 other homes. Though I struggle to locate the full proposal online, I am sure it was created to
49 protect other residents who have been forced to listen to constant gunfire and cannot enjoy the
50 peace and quiet of their own home. Shooting ranges were created for this purpose. Please let
34
1 me know how I may further express my support. Those against the ordinance clearly are more
2 concerned with their rights to shoot cans than the rights of others to enjoy peace and quiet.
3
4 Thank you-
5
6 Katherine Walker
7
8
9 Hello,
10 We are very much for the amendment to regulate the discharge of firearms. Can I attend this
11 meeting? I am having a hard time finding out where this meeting is located. I saw something
12 that noted the time as 7pm, 02.16.2016.
13
14 We live in a residential neighborhood consisting of 1 acre lots. We have lived here for more
15 than 10 years and have lived Orange County for almost 20 years. About a year ago we had
16 new neighbors move in. These new neighbors decided to start rifle firing on their property. With
17 the acre lots we are less than 500 feet away from them. In neighborhoods like these it is not
18 safe for them to be allowed to do this.
19
20 We have been outside playing in our yard and have had to go back inside and shut all windows
21 and doors due to the noise. We also have resorted to calling the sheriff on occasion as well.
22 (before the firing started we had never needed to call the sheriff's department) We have
23 neighbors that have had to move cook outs or birthday parties inside due to the intrusive noise.
24
25 My husband is a Chapel Hill Police officer and has been for 17 years, it has never occurred to
26 him in our more than 10 years of living here to practice firing in our yard. He always goes to a
27 range.
28
29 Some of our other neighbors have had it worse than us, on Tanya road there are people that
30 fire day and night and also fire into tannerite.
31
32 It would be very appropriate and long needed for this amendment to pass. At least some
33 restriction for residential areas. Currently the attitude is "we're out in the county" or"there's no
34 ordinance preventing me from doing it". I wish that all people would address the situation with
35 common sense but it will take a change in governance to get change for this issue.
36
37 Thank you,
38 Tracy Shinn
39 105 Drake Drive
40 Mebane, NC 27302
41
42
43 Dear Commissioners:
44
45 You may be following the social medial debate on the proposed gun ordinance. I find
46 the ordinance confusing and it is unclear if/how the ordinance actually addresses the issue of
47 nuisance from constant target shooting.
48
49 In my opinion, it would help if you slow this down and give people a chance to have a
50 meaningful conversation about noise and other nuisances. Most of us accept occasional target
35
1 shooting, hunting, or sport shooting in the community, and agree that constant target shooting
2 near homes is a nuisance and needs to be addressed.
3
4 Please delay approval of the ordinance, and instead create a process to get more input and
5 evaluate options. Please include the county sheriff, gun safety leaders, hunt clubs and
6 members of the community who have been adversely impacted by noise and other impacts of
7 target practice.
8
9 Thank you for considering my view.
10 Bonnie
11 Bonnie Hauser
12 919 732-9316
13 919 619-4354 (cell)
14 www.BonnieHauser.com
15
16
17 Mr. Newsome,
18
19 Thank you for your email and be assured that your comments will be considered by our board.
20 You make a good point about the time issue and one that has been mentioned before.
21
22 Earl McKee
23 Chair
24
25 Mr. McKee
26 Mr. Dorosin
27 Ms. Burroughs
28 Mr. Jacobs
29 Ms. Pelvis sure
30 Ms. Price
31 Ms. Rich
32
33 I'm sure that you have not considered the 4-H Shooting Team when setting the 6:00 pm limit on
34 shooting at ranges. These kids are neither criminals nor careless shooters. They have been
35 taught to respect guns and what they can do as well as the rights of others. There are a couple
36 of young people who have qualified for the National's. They need to practice. Since they go to
37 school, and believe it or not some have jobs, it's hard for them to get everything done by 6:00
38 pm. Being a former state employee, I'm disappointed that you haven't investigated this matter
39 more thoroughly. I trust that you will consider this decision and rethink your current position.
40 While I can't be there on Tuesday night for your meeting because of a home bound 95 year old
41 mother whom I have to visit and caregive for the next 2 days, I would be happy to offer my
42 thoughts afterwards. Thank you for reading and taking the appropriate action.
43
44 Tom Newsome
45 Retired Chief Deputy State Controller
46 919-662-6941
47 Thomasnewsome @earthlink.net
48
49
50 Dear Board of Commissioners,
36
1
2 We would like to let you know of our opposition to the proposed ordinance regarding the
3 discharge of firearms on private property. We feel that this ordinance has not received
4 adequate public input, including a well advertised public hearing, and in fact appears to have
5 been handled in such a way as to prevent widespread public knowledge of it in advance.
6
7 We understand that the ordinance was developed in response to a citizen operating a shooting
8 range every day and all day on his property, thereby creating a nuisance for his surrounding
9 neighbors. If this one citizen is behaving inappropriately then the more logical response should
10 be to address that specific situation, rather than casting a broad net that impacts so many
11 people who behave with respect and consideration for their neighbors.
12
13 We urge you to vote against this unnecessary ordinance that only further divides rural and
14 urban Orange County.
15
16 Sincerely,
17
18 Steve and Susan Halkiotis
19
20
21 Greetings,
22
23 I am a resident of southwest Orange county and have been for over 60 years. Today I spoke to
24 several of you to register my opposition to any legislation which would restrict my right to
25 discharge firearms on my property. Unfortunately, I can not attend tomorrows meeting to tell
26 you in person.
27
28 I have lived, voted and paid taxes here a long time but this is beginning to go to far. Please kill
29 this or at least consider a re-write which is less onerous.
30
31 James Allen
32
33
34 To the committee:
35
36 I am absolutely against this order.
37
38 I am a landowner and tax payer in Northern Orange County. I have numerous reasons that you
39 should vote against this ordinance.
40
41 First and foremost the land and property is mine. What I do on my property is my business. If
42 you start telling me what I can and cannot do on my own land what is on your agenda to
43 control next; my barking dog? I will not be treated by my own government like an HOA.
44
45 Second, exactly how do you expect our already taxed Sheriff's department to govern such an
46 ordinance? My only thought is with more taxes. Wrong!
47
48 Third, how exactly are you to determine if it's a hunter or just target practice? You cant! and you
49 won't be able to.
50
37
1 Fourth, be reasonable on the requirements! How are the landowners supposed to comply due
2 to the strict guidelines on other structures?
3
4 Fifth, can you say that our target shooting has caused any incidents? No, you cannot. Why?
5 Because we are responsible adults!
6
7 My wife and I are both are target shooters and we only shoot during reasonable hours and we
8 have safety measures in place to ensure no bullets stray from our range area. We govern
9 ourselves so you are not welcome to offer your big brother oversite on to us!
10
11 Respectfully,
12 Mr. and Mrs. Harold F Wagner Jr.
13
14
15 I have strong concerns as to limiting my constitutional right to shoot safely On my property and
16 see it as an over reach of local government to step in and tell a land owner that he may not
17 safely discharge a firearm on their property. I feel that this is back door gun regulation.
18
19 Steve Summey
20
21
22 We do not agree with the proposed gun law in motion. We support residents rights on their
23 private land within reasonable daytime hours. Please advise if this should be redirected
24 somewhere else or if there is a meeting we may attend to speak against this.
25
26 Sincerely,
27 Stephanie Jopson
28 Orange County resident and voter
29 336-263-2548
30
31
32 To whom it may concern,
33
34 I am against the proposed firearm ordinance being presented February 16, 2016 board
35 meeting. I should be able to target practice under safe conditions when ever I want to on my
36 own property. The board is trying to slide this through without the public input it deserves. I also
37 work and there should not be a time frame which limits my rights. 10 am to 6 am is
38 unreasonable. The board needs to table this motion until further input is received from the
39 public.
40
41 Sincerely,
42 Allison Herndon
43
44
45 Dear Commissioners,
46 My name is James Depew. I am a Concealed Carry Handgun instructor, NRA Pistol instructor,
47 and NRA Range Safety Officer. My wife and I hold small classes and use family land in Orange
48 County for target practice and instruction. Our class makeup is about 80% female (usually 4 to
49 5 students at a time, one of which on average is male) and many of our pupils are senior
50 citizens. The fastest growing demographic for Concealed Carry Handgun permittees is women
38
1 and our classes focus on empowerment nearly as much as on safety and marksmanship. We
2 diligently work with our students one-on-one and focus extremely heavily on gun safety. No one
3 is allowed to shoot on the property without myself and/or my wife (who is also a Concealed
4 Carry Handgun instructor, NRA Pistol instructor, and NRA Range Safety Officer) present.
5 I am extremely concerned that this legislation has made it to this point in the process with no
6 open hearings and further, that the only input received from the public was from a single
7 complainant. It is my belief that it would behoove the board to consult not only with a broader
8 spectrum of constituents but with constituents who have some level of experience and expertise
9 in these matters.
10
11 This legislation as it is currently written will greatly impede the ability of instructors in Orange
12 County to train students in the safe and responsible utilization of firearms. If safety concerns
13 prompted this legislation, then I feel that this should be taken into account. Marksmanship and
14 safety fundamentals must be learned, and the most effective way to become versed in these
15 fundamentals is through practice - the hands-on practice that this legislation would make nearly
16 impossible to administer.
17
18 The burden placed upon our already taxed law enforcement officials seems untenable; this
19 statute would be nearly impossible to enforce even with a much larger law enforcement
20 presence.
21
22 The signage portion alone is patently ridiculous in my opinion, and is not even the worst portion
23 of the proposed legislation. A sign every 100 feet around the perimeter of the property? If we
24 take a 5-acre square lot as an example (and lots are never square), the perimeter would be
25 roughly 1,867 feet. That means posting 187 signs around the perimeter of the property. To say
26 that this is unreasonable would be farcical at best.
27 I ask that the Board not sign this legislation. It is not enforceable, it is intrusive, and it has been
28 written without any input from constituents who are actually familiar with the subject matter
29 involved. At the very least, please allow a public discourse on the subject so that more than one
30 point of view can be expressed.
31
32 Kind regards,
33 James Depew
34 Cedar Grove, NC
35
36
37 Dear Chairman McKee and Orange County Board of Commissioners:
38
39 I am writing to urge you to vote against the proposed amendment regarding regulating the
40 discharge of firearms.
41
42 Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
43
44 Matt Heinze
45 Hillsborough, NC
46 matt.heinze @gmail.com
47
48
49 Dear sirs/madams
50
39
1 As a responsible gun owner I feel that the proposed gun ordinance for Orange county goes
2 against my Second Amendment rights. Why punish the whole county due to the neglect of one
3 person. I wound how ever be in favor of supporting the recommendations of the county sheriff if
4 you feel that something must be done.
5
6 Best regards
7 Robert Hulse
8 Efland, Nc
9
10
11 Please reject all proposals outright. The right to fire arms on private property is a free will given
12 to us as American Orange County land owners and shot NOT be taken away!
13
14 Stephanie Patterson
15
16
17
18
19 Dear Sirs,
20 As a responsible gun owner and member of Buckhorn Gun Club in Orange County, I oppose
21 any ordinance that that could impact my freedom of gun ownership and shooting of guns in a
22 responsible manner on private land. I ask that you work in a manner to deal with the problems
23 that have resulted in this proposal on an individual basis and not at the expense of the law
24 abiding citizens. Please feel free to contact me if needed regarding this matter.
25 Sincerely, Ronald H. Kearns
26
27 Ronald Kearns
28 5905 Jameson Road
29 Rougemont, NC 27572
30 Ph 919-732-7910 Email: rhkearns @vahoo.com
31
32
33 Dear Commissioners,
34
35 Please know that if this meeting was open to the public, I would be there. My name Is Jennifer
36 Merritt Depew and my Husband and the majority of my Merritt, Woods, Cook and Yates family
37 live in Orange County. We have been shooting on our 5 acres of land for years as my great-
38 grandmother and great uncles did for 80 years or so before me. I am a Concealed Carry
39 Handgun instructor, NRA Basic Pistol Instructor and a NRA trained Range Safety officer, but
40 my main goal is empowering the disempowered. While teaching the laws regarding the uses of
41 deadly force that were taught to me by the North Carolina Department of Justice, we have
42 instructed many about the safety and fundamentals of marksmanship and safety on our
43 property. I take no more than 10 students (at the most) a few times a month (at the most) to
44 target practice. I am an NRA Range Safety Officer and do everything within my training and
45 power to ensure the safety of my shooters and any surrounding property. I "instruct" one person
46 at a time. There is no "wild" firing. I have my hands on my students at all times while they are
47 firing. I teach the elderly and infirm. Therefore it takes a little while, as it should, to ensure
48 thoroughness and proper training.
49
40
1 I shoot in a valley on my land with a natural earth berm that would more than stop any
2 projectile, unless someone shot into the air which does not happen with my instruction and
3 under my supervision. Our shooting may last 30 minutes to not likely more than 2 hours. I have
4 one neighbor that had "concerns" last year and he walked onto my clearly posted private
5 property, past the no trespassing signs to ask what I was doing, I advised him to never do that
6 again, but if it would make him feel better, I would let him know when I'd be shooting, on my
7 land, at a safe distance, into a safe berm and I have since then called him each time, while I am
8 not required to. No one shoots on my property without me knowing them nor without me or my
9 husband (who is also a NRA RSO present).
10 I am very disturbed that this piece of legislation made it this far with input only from the board
11 and the single complainant who showed for the hearing. In a time where the largest growing
12 segment of the population striving to protect themselves, buying guns and seeking training are
13 women, women who are frightened or unaware of their abilities, single mothers and single
14 young women. We should encourage training, not discourage it. If a woman gets her CCH
15 permit with minimal training, she's still likely to be a victim. I teach them how to carry, how to
16 draw, safe ways to carry, how to hit what you are aiming at. I empower them and I find it
17 abhorrent that the commissioners would take a handful of complaints and none but one who
18 cared enough to show up, and target people training women, helping the weak of any gender to
19 help themselves so that they are no longer victims or feel like victims.
20
21 Addressing the signage requirement is mind-boggling for me. There are already clearly marked
22 property lines, but we do not prosecute trespassers? There are so many ordinances and laws
23 that do not/can not get enforced at this point, how will our already stretched law enforcement
24 possibly deal with the complaints from this too?
25
26 I/We ask that the Board NOT sign this piece of legislation, revisit it for more inclusivity of your
27 true constituents, ask us questions, seek viable answers. This amendment/ordinance is
28 intrusive, offensive and will be a nightmare for the county to enforce.
29
30 Sincerely,
31 Jennifer Merritt Depew
32 Cedar Grove, NC
33
34
35 Commissioners
36
37 Please consider this amendment carefully. Individuals should be held accountable for their own
38 actions without the shotgun approach to governing. Do not let the actions of a few guide you to
39 impose regulations on the majority. This amendment would make it nearly impossible to shoot
40 even a handgun on nearly one hundred acres. We do not need more regulation on what we can
41 do on our own property. I can not believe this is a wide spread problem in our county. I am sure
42 their are a few bad seeds with feuds going on with neighbors that has caused this to come to
43 light. Common sense should prevail but some do not have it.
44 This issue should, at least, be tabled until public opinion from county residents, not the cities or
45 the towns, can be heard.
46
47 Thank you
48 Bill Kendrick
49
50
41
1 Dear Orange County Board of Commissioners,
2
3 I am writing to urge you to vote against the proposed amendment regarding regulating the
4 discharge of firearms.
5
6 A review of the agenda abstract for your February 16th meeting has left me shocked and
7 dismayed that such an unfair amendment would even make it to a vote! The restriction
8 regarding the hours during which one can discharge a firearm alone is tantamount to gun
9 control, not to mention the back stop requirements or the space requirements. You are in
10 effect making legal gun owners criminals for discharging firearms on their own property, even if
11 said discharge is done in a completely safe and controlled manner.
12
13 Surely, our elected officials on the Board of Commissioners will see the unfairness and
14 ridiculous nature of this amendment and make the right decision and reject it outright. The
15 average property owner has neither the square footage/acreage nor the means (financial or
16 otherwise) to construct a 15 foot high barrier as stipulated in the amendment. Our own Sheriff
17 Blackwood also took objection with the nature of these examples I pointed our as evidenced by
18 the email attached to the agenda and I trust that the Board will follow suit and vote "No" on
19 Tuesday night.
20
21 Thanks very much for your time and consideration.
22
23 Sincerely,
24 Alan Forrest
25 Hillsborough, NC
26
27
28 Dear Orange County Commissioners,
29
30 I hope everyone is doing well and making it through the wintry weather without incident.
31
32 It is with great concern that I come to you regarding the proposed ordinance and above
33 amendment regulating the discharge of firearms that is scheduled to be voted on during the
34 above meeting.
35
36 I am a landowner of almost 14 acres and occasionally discharge guns for the fun of it, target
37 practice for my kids and/or practice for my wife. With the proposed ordinance, I am certain that
38 I would be in violation, considering it's an every other weekend occurrence for my family this
39 time of year, and even more often when the weather is nice. Especially when considering the
40 proposed guidelines about x feet from here and x feet from there.
41
42 I have not had one complaint from any of my neighbors. Not one. Nor have there been ANY
43 negative impacts, injuries or mishaps.
44
45 The idea that the ENTIRE county of tax paying, land/home owners should be "punished" due to
46 one individuals irresponsibility is not a practical, or reasonable approach.
47
48 The very fact that this proposal is just making it's way to the citizens of Orange County is also
49 very concerning and, as a result, I feel should it be tabled until rational thought can be applied —
50 at the least, and then, ultimately, rejected.
42
1
2 Sincerely,
3
4 Greg Moore
5 NC Lawn Solutions, LLC
6 NC Pesticide Applicators Lic# 026-32149
7 www.nclawnsolutions.com
8 919-485-9338
9
10
11 Dear Commissioners,
12
13 My name is Linda Galloway and my Husband is Neal Galloway we live in Orange County. We
14 have been shooting on our Paid for 3 acres of land for 30 years. We have taught many about
15 the safety and fundamentals of marksmanship on our range.
16
17 We have a safe range with large berm and targets in front. Our secessions may last 30 minutes
18 to no longer than 2 hours. If we have any neighbors that complain about noise because they
19 are sick or trying to sleep or their kids sleep we always postpone our shooting. WE RESENT
20 ANY UNDO RESTRICTIONS ON OUR LONG FAMILY TRADITION!
21
22 We ask that the Commissioners preserve our American Liberties in Orange County.
23 Sincerely,
24 Neal and Linda Galloway
25 Hillsborough, NC
26
27
28 I have been a citizen of and a property owner in Orange County for approximately 23 years.
29 am a law abiding citizen. I am against the proposed amendment to regulate the discharge of
30 firearms. This amendment is a hardship on the average citizen. I am not wealthy enough to
31 own a large piece of land. From my property I cannot even see another structure other than
32 mine. Even so with your proposed regulations I cannot discharge my weapon because of the
33 number of feet required to the property line. I think an overwhelming majority of the citizenry is
34 the same as me.
35
36 I certainly hope that you will table this proposal and seek further input from Orange County
37 citizens. Thank you.
38
39 Walter M. Mills
40
41
42 Dear Orange County Commissioners,
43
44 It has come to the attention of a number of citizens, concerned land and gun owners of Orange
45 County that the above amendment regulating the discharge of firearms will be voted on during
46 the above meeting.
47
48 This proposed ordinance is a result of a landowner in the county using their property as a
49 shooting range all day long, every day and creating a nuisance. The complaints of this
50 nuisance resulted in the Orange County Planning Department creating and proposing this
43
1 ordinance to the Commissioners. This proposed ordinance is a knee jerk reaction by the
2 Orange County Planning Department without consideration of the result on property owners
3 and gun owner's rights. Alternative resolutions were presented to the Planning Department for
4 consideration, all of which were rejected and the present ordinance resubmitted to the
5 Commissioners for a vote without landowner or gun owner's input. The only choice we as
6 citizens have is to convince you to table this amendment and reconsider it after public input.
7 It is very concerning that there has been very little public notification and discussion of this
8 proposed ordinance. There are many items in this amendment that we as citizens and gun
9 owners would like to see removed or better yet consider the Lenoir County Ordinance
10 Regulating The Discharge of Firearms for public input.
11
12 Thank you,
13 Mac & Phyllis McDade
14 Concerned Orange County Citizens
15
16
17 Dear OCBOCC,
18
19 I am one of many Orange County citizens who are opposed to the proposed Orange County
20 Gun Ordinance. Please don't pass it. Thanks.
21
22 Mark Prokop
23 Chapel Hill, NC
24 Have a blessed day!!!
25
26
27 Why do you people think you get to tell folk what they can and can't do on their own land. You
28 might think that you have enough liberals in the city and you don't need rural votes but you're
29 wrong. People are going to shoot on their land no matter what you do. You just want another
30 way to put your fascist boot on their neck. See you Tuesday.
31
32 Michael A Philpott
33
34
35 Commissioners:
36
37 The proposed new firearms discharge regulations are onerous, unreasonable and completely
38 unnecessary. They would greatly change the way of life of the citizens of rural Orange County.
39 Likely, making most of our lifestyles and ways of life illegal, without demonstrating any
40 justification for such an infringement. I would ask you to reject all of these proposals outright.
41
42 Joshua Summey
43
44
45 Commissioners,
46
47 Last night I saw on Facebook someone posting the Agenda for your February 16 meeting and
48 specifically the proposed additions to the Firearms Ordinance.
49
44
1 I have suggested they share with you their opposition as complaining on Facebook is not a way
2 to get their opinion through.
3
4 I do wish to express my opinion about the proposed ordinance. Full disclosure I am a gun
5 owner and I enjoy shooting. I do agree with the premise of some of the proposal, I do think
6 some of it is excessive.
7
8 I agree to the following points under 24-3 (c) 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10.
9
10 While I can agree to the premise of the following sections of 24-3 (c) I think that possibly it can
11 be misconstrued since the wording is vague those sections are 7 and 8.
12
13 Under 24-3 (c) section 5. I can see that this shouldn't be an issue if it happens on an large
14 parcel of property, but if the property is smaller I can definitely support. What size should be
15 the limit? I'm not totally sure. Maybe putting a distance requirement on this provision.
16
17 I do believe that under 24-3 (c) sections 4 and 6 are a bit excessive. I do think the
18 recommendations that were made by Sheriff Blackwood makes more sense. Lengthening
19 hours to 7 am to 11 pm and as well changing the language of point 6 to the Sheriff's
20 recommendation.
21
22 Lastly I think 24-3 (e) the signs at 100 foot intervals on the property lines seems also excessive.
23 I can imagine someone that wants to lawfully shoot and having to put up signs every 100 feet
24 on private property is costly and excessive. Firstly if it is private property others should not be
25 on said property.
26
27 In the end what I'm thinking is if someone wants to come home from work or during the day and
28 enjoys to target shoot on their property and now has to go to the extent of this is many loop
29 holes to jump through. I do not think the sign provision or the excessive backstop specification
30 or the hours will provide any more safety.
31
32 I also worry that if this passes the county will be mired in litigation from lawsuits that stem from
33 groups that challenge the legality of this.
34
35 Thank you for sharing my 2 cents.
36
37 Respectfully,
38 Justin Tillett
39
40 Chair McKee said typically the BOCC remains silent during public comment, but this
41 evening it is likely appropriate for the Board to speak. He said he would address the question
42 of from where this ordinance came. He said there have been many complaints over the years
43 related to irresponsible shooting, and Orange County has no ordinances to address the
44 complaints. He said the procedure began with a public hearing in September 2015, and then
45 returned to the Board in January, as a part of a recreational land use text amendment. He said
46 the Board and the Attorney agreed to pull it out of that text amendment. He said if the Board
47 was seeking to pass this in secret, it could have done so that evening, but rather it was pulled
48 out and made into a general ordinance for review this evening.
49 Chair McKee said he takes responsibility for his role in the lack of sufficient
50 communication to the public about the issue. He said the Board must air the arguments for
45
1 both sides of the debate. He said one complainant has a store in the northern part of Orange
2 County, but lives in the southern part of the County. He said this citizen has a neighbor that
3 shoots until somewhere between 10:00 p.m. and midnight. He said the shooting keeps him
4 awake.
5 Chair McKee said he has a neighbor that has some type of weapon that either is, or
6 sounds like, an automatic weapon. He said this does not bother him, as he is used to hearing
7 gunfire.
8 Chair McKee said this is how the issue came before the BOCC, and while it may not be
9 perfect, this is what they have to work with now.
10 Commissioner Rich said she is interested in hearing ways to communicate more
11 effectively with the public about these meetings and notifications, especially those without
12 Internet access. She said she is the Commission liaison to the communications team, and it is
13 important to her.
14 Roger Moore said to put posters up on phone poles or in local stores, notices in
15 newspapers, or on television or radio stations.
16 Commissioner Rich said the original notice always goes in the newspaper. She asked if
17 those with email would be willing to share their email, to sign up on the County subscription
18 services.
19 Roger Moore said he could do this, but many people simply cannot afford the expense
20 of the Internet.
21 Jack Hunnell asked if citizens could sign up for specific "target words" and only receive
22 notices about those meetings. He asked if this issue was primarily a noise issue, how did all
23 the other elements of the ordinance come to pass.
24 Chair McKee said the original complaint involved gunfire.
25 Commissioner Jacobs said communicating with residents in rural Orange County has
26 been a chronic problem. He said Rockingham County won an award for addressing the issue
27 by doing the very thing that Mr. Moore suggested of taking posters to prominent community
28 locations. He said the BOCC often focuses on doing things efficiently and in a cost effective
29 manner, and using manpower to go around the County and post signs is not the cheapest
30 method. He added that the community is not being informed, and that is unacceptable.
31 Sheriff Blackwood said the Sheriff's deputies would be glad to take posters and notices
32 around to all areas of the County.
33 Don O'Leary said notification could be sent in tax bills or vehicle registration mailings.
34 Alan Mauer said he appreciated the Board's desire to improve communication, but that
35 is not the topic of tonight's discussion.
36 Steve Hopper said the News of Northern Orange is free to everyone. He asked if the
37 Sheriff could comment on the proposed ordinance.
38 Sheriff Blackwood said all too often there are polarized sections and a plan needs to be
39 made as how to address this issue together. He said regarding notification, it is incumbent
40 upon citizens to be interested and involved in local government. He said the BOCC and the
41 Sheriff are available to speak with the residents at all times. He said to come at the eleventh
42 hour, when this has been discussed for two years, is not right. He said an ordinance is not
43 needed to address lawful, responsible, firing of a weapon on one's property. He said property
44 damaged by errant rounds can be addressed by existing laws. He said the Lenoir County
45 ordinance strikes him as reasonable and responsible and he encouraged all to read it. He said
46 he is going to enforce any adopted ordinances. He said he respects the BOCC and the
47 diligence with which it works on every decision it makes. He said he does not want to take
48 anyone's rights away. He enjoys shooting and does so responsibly. He said there was a need
49 for an ordinance, one was drafted that was imperfect, and now all must come together to reach
50 a solution.
46
1 Commissioner Dorosin said he appreciated this discussion and the goal was to start this
2 conversation to gather feedback. He said this evening is a good beginning and he suggested
3 following up with Commissioner Jacobs' suggestion in order to find some common ground, and
4 achieve the desired balance.
5 Commissioner Pelissier said the public should not make assumptions that all members
6 of the Board live in cities. She said she lives in rural Orange County where she hears target
7 shooting on occasion, which does not bother her at all. She said the role of the BOCC is to
8 protect the health and safety for all residents in Orange County and if an ordinance is needed, it
9 should be reasonable and practical. She said the BOCC should work with the Sheriff to see
10 how many complaints there have been, and then have the Sheriff speak with the County
11 Manager to kick-start this conversation. She expressed thanks to all who spoke this evening,
12 noting the BOCC now has a good understanding of firearms use in rural Orange County.
13 Commissioner Price said she has no intention of taking away anyone's rights, and just
14 because the item is on the agenda, does not mean that she supports it. She said she finds the
15 ordinance to be excessive, and she looks forward to a more reasonable proposal.
16 Commissioner Burroughs said she is a city girl and has learned so much tonight. She
17 said she feels better equipped to evaluate the issue and is very grateful that everyone came to
18 speak this evening.
19 Chair McKee said the Lenoir ordinance has been referred to several times, and he read
20 parts of it. He said he can support an ordinance like this, but not the ordinance that is before
21 the BOCC tonight. He reviewed some of the highlights to which he is opposed. He said he has
22 no sympathy for the irresponsible gun owner. He said he has taken heat on social media for
23 not staking out a position earlier, but he will do so now. He will not support the proposed
24 ordinance, and he would like to see it rejected tonight. He said he agrees with Commissioner
25 Jacobs' suggestion of the proposed work group made up of different stakeholders.
26
27 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
28 reconstitute what once was the Orange County Hunting Ordinance work group and call it the
29 Orange County Firearms Safety Committee and stakeholders would include the Orange County
30 Sheriff, a representative from the N.C. Wildlife Resources Department, the County Attorney, the
31 County Manager, and members of the firearms community, as well as individuals who have
32 contacted the Board of County Commissioners who supported this ordinance and those who
33 felt unsafe due to firearms. The group's charge would include, but not necessarily be limited to,
34 the purpose of having an additional County firearms, noise, lot size, cost, posting property,
35 safety concerns, and to look at other similar county ordinances, and what this proposed
36 ordinance did or did not accomplish.
37 The second part of the motion was to reject this proposed firearms ordinance
38 amendment.
39 Commissioner Jacobs said this committee would meet for as long as it took to reach a
40 resolution. He suggested the Clerk's office advertise for those residents that may want to
41 participate.
42
43 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
44
45 Roger Moore said another county has already passed a good, simple ordinance, and the
46 County may be wasting time in reviewing the issue.
47 Chair McKee said the BOCC seeks public engagement.
48
49 8. Reports
50
47
1 a. Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan Annual Report
2 The Board will consider receiving Go Triangle's annual report on the Orange County
3 Bus and Rail Investment Plan (OCBRIP), and provide feedback as appropriate.
4
5 DEFERRED
6
7 b. Update from GoTriangle - Park and Ride Lot and Bus Transfer Facility
8 The Board will consider receiving a report and providing feedback on staff's work
9 planning for a park and ride lot and bus transfer facility in the Hillsborough area, including
10 options to: 1) locate a park and ride lot on US 70 at New Hope Church, with a transfer facility at
11 US 70 and Faucette Mill Road; or 2) locate a park and ride lot on US 70 at Faucette Mill Road,
12 with a transfer facility; or 3) conduct a more extensive site selection process.
13
14 DEFERRED
15
16 c. FY2015-16 Second Quarter General Fund and Enterprise Funds Financial Report
17 The Board will consider receiving the Quarter General Fund and Enterprise Funds
18 summary Financial Report for the period of July 1, 2015— December 31, 2015, and provide
19 staff with feedback.
20
21 DEFERRED
22
23 9. County Manager's Report
24 Bonnie Hammersley said the next meeting will be the Quarterly Public Hearing, as well
25 as a work session.
26 Bonnie Hammersley said the Pauli Murray Awards will be held on February 28, from
27 3:00-4:30 p.m. at the Whitted Building.
28 Bonnie Hammersley said the agricultural summit will be held on February 29, from 9:00
29 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building, followed by a new networking, social event in the
30 same location.
31
32 10. County Attorney's Report
33 NONE
34
35 11. Appointments
36
37 a. Chapel Hill Orange County Visitors Bureau —Appointments
38 The Board considered making appointments to the Chapel Hill Orange County Visitors
39 Bureau.
40
41 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price to
42 appoint the following to the Chapel Hill Orange County Visitors Bureau:
43
44 • Appointment to a first full term (Position #1)At-Large Chapel Hill Town Council position
45 for George Cianciolo expiring 12/31/2018.
46 • Appointment to a partial term (Position #7) Town of Hillsborough Board of
47 Commissioners for Mark Bell expiring 12/31/2016.
48 • Appointment to a first full term (Position #8) OC Lodging Association for Andrew
49 Strickland expiring 12/31/2018.
48
1 • Appointment to a partial term (Position #10) Alliance for Historic Hillsborough for Jeff
2 Strickler expiring 12/31/2017.
3 • Appointment to a one year term (Position #13) Ex-Officio Economic Development Staff-
4 Town of Chapel Hill for Lee Storrow expiring 12/31/2016.
5 • Request to move member Mark Sherburne from (Position #5) Economic Development
6 Advisory Board — Orange County to (Position #11) OC Lodging Association expiring
7 12/31/2018.
8 • Request to move member Nitin Khanna from (Position #11) OC Lodging Association to
9 (Position #5) Economic Development Advisory Board —Orange County expiring
10 12/31/2017.
11
12 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
13
14 b. Hillsborough Planning Board —Appointment
15 The Board considered making an appointment to the Hillsborough Planning Board.
16
17 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
18 appoint the following to the Hillsborough Planning Board:
19
20 • Appointment of Lisa Frazier to a first full term (Position #2) Hillsborough ETJ position
21 expiring 10/31/2018.
22
23 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
24
25 c. Historic Preservation Commission —Appointment
26 The Board considered making an appointment to the Historic Preservation Commission.
27
28 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
29 appoint the following to the Historic Preservation Commission:
30
31 • Appointment of Alexandria Mead to a first full term (Position #3)At-Large expiring
32 03/31/2018.
33
34 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
35
36 d. Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee —Appointment
37 The Board considered making an appointment to the Nursing Home Community
38 Advisory Committee.
39
40 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
41 appoint the following to the Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee:
42
43 • Appointment of Maria Hardin to a partial term (Position #11) At-Large Nursing Home
44 Administration position expiring 12/31/2016.
45
46 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
47
48 12. Board Comments
49 Commissioner Burroughs asked the Sheriff if his deputies have a practice location.
49
1 Sheriff Blackwood said they have used places in Alamance County, the Durham County
2 range extensively, and Wake County's indoor range, which is quite a distance away. He said
3 the possibility of an indoor range in Orange County is being considered.
4 Commissioner Price had no comments.
5 Commissioner Dorosin said the effort must be made to hold meetings that are apt to
6 draw a large crowd, at the Whitted Building.
7 Commissioner Rich had no comments.
8 Commissioner Jacobs referred to a firing range in Orange County, and asked the Sheriff
9 if he thinks one for both public and law enforcement use is feasible.
10 Sheriff Blackwood said yes, and it would be profitable and useful.
11 Commissioner Jacobs thanked Bonnie Hammersley for sending an electronic copy of
12 the rural character study out to the full board.
13 Commissioner Pelissier said she attended a two-day workshop on racial equity which
14 was transformative for her. She said she will talk to the Manager, and possibly the Sheriff,
15 about having this training for staff.
16 Commissioner Pelissier said a major decision was made when the Federal
17 Transportation Administration (FTA) accepted the environmental impact statement for the
18 proposed light rail. She said the submission to the FTA included the statement, back up plans
19 and all public comment; and the FTA accepting the statement means the plan meets adequate
20 criteria, and everything that the plan promises must be done. She said this allows Go Triangle
21 to apply to the FTA for the next step in the process, which is preliminary engineering.
22 Chair McKee said a lot of tonight's comments can be taken to heart, particularly the
23 notion of having larger meetings at the Whitted Building.
24 Chair McKee said there is a very good, affordable housing provider, Eno Haven in
25 Hillsborough, but noted they have been non-responsive to communication. He said he plans to
26 follow up on this issue somehow. He said he had been trying to reach them for days, including
27 putting a note on the manager's door.
28
29
30 13. Information Items
31
32 • February 2, 2016 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
33 • Memorandum - Hollow Rock Nature Park Update
34 • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from February 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
35
36 14. Closed Session
37 None
38
39 15. Adjournment
40
41 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
42 adjourn the meeting at 10:46 p.m.
43
44 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
45
46 Earl McKee, Chair
47
48
49 Donna Baker,
50 Clerk to the Board
50
1
1
1 Attachment 2
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
6 February 18, 2016
7 7:00 P.M.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met with the Orange County Planning Board for a
10 Quarterly Public Hearing on February 18, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building, in
11 Hillsborough, N.C.
12
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Earl McKee and Commissioners Barry Jacobs,
14 Mia Burroughs, Mark Dorosin, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
16 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: James Bryan (Staff Attorney)
17 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley and Deputy Clerk to the
18 Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
19
20 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
21
22 A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
23 None.
24
25 B. PUBLIC CHARGE
26 Chair McKee dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge.
27
28 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
29
30 1. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment -To review government-
31 initiated amendments to the text of the UDO regarding mailed notification requirements.
32
33 Perdita Holtz, Orange County Planning Department, presented the following PowerPoint
34 slides:
35
36 Mailed Notifications
37 Quarterly Public Hearing
38 February 18, 2016
39 Item C.1
40
41 Purpose of Amendment
42 • Correct omissions to the public hearing process amendments that were adopted in
43 November 2015.
44 • Update mailed notice requirements in two sections that were not contemplated for
45 amendments last year.
46
47 Correct Omissions
48 • Three sections related to required Neighborhood Information Meeting for Special Use
49 Permits, Conditional Use Districts, and Conditional Zoning Districts.
2
1 o Notification boundary was increased from 500 feet to 1,000 feet and the intention
2 was to use first class mail for the notifications but the adopted materials
3 accidently retained the use of certified mail.
4 Current proposal fixes this oversight and notifications would be mailed
5 using first class mail.
6
7 Update Two Sections
8 • Two sections of the UDO that contain requirements for Neighborhood Information
9 Meetings were not contemplated for amendments last year.
10 o Major Subdivisions (Section 2.15)
11 o Governmental Use (Section 2.24)
12 • Propose to increase the notification distance from 500 feet to 1,000 feet and use first
13 class mail.
14 o Keep notification requirements consistent within the UDO.
15
16 Planning Board Recommendation
17 • Recommended approval at its January 6, 2016 meeting.
18
19 Planning Director Recommendation
20 • Recommends approval of the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 2) and the
21 Ordinance/amendment package (Attachment 3).
22
23 Recommendation
24 1. Receive the proposed amendments to the UDO.
25 2. Conduct the public hearing and accept comment on the proposed amendments.
26 3. Close the public hearing.
27 4. Decide on one of the following options:
28 a. Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency
29 (Attachment 2) and Ordinance (Attachment 3).
30 b. Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date.
31 c. Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose.
32
33 Chair McKee asked if the Board had any questions, as no one from the public had
34 signed up to speak.
35 Commissioner Jacobs said some citizens have had concerns about notification and this
36 is responsive to those concerns. He thanked the staff for addressing this issue.
37
38 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Price to
39 close the public hearing.
40
41 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
42
43 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Price to
44 adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency in Attachment 2
45 as revised and Ordinance in Attachment 3.
46
47 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
48
49 2. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment -To review government-
50 initiated amendments to the text of the UDO regarding temporary custodial care units.
3
1
2 PURPOSE: To hold a public hearing on Planning Director initiated Unified Development
3 Ordinance (UDO) text amendments regarding temporary custodial care units, receive the
4 Planning Board's recommendation, and consider the course of action on the proposed
5 amendments.
6 Ashley Moncado, Orange County Planning Inspections, presented the following
7 PowerPoint slides:
8
9 Unified Development Ordinance
10 Text Amendment
11 Temporary Custodial Care units
12 Quarterly Public Hearing
13 February 18, 2016
14 Item C.2
15
16 Purpose
17 To hold a public hearing on Planning Director initiated Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
18 text amendment regarding proposed standards for temporary custodial care units, receive the
19 Planning Board's recommendation, and consider the course of action on the proposed
20 amendments.
21
22 Background
23 • August 1, 2014—Session Law 2014-94 adopted
24 • May 26, 2015 —Quarterly Public Hearing
25 • September 1, 2015 — BOCC adoption consideration
26 o Motion to refer the item back to the Planning Board and staff to include comments
27 received at the May 26 Quarterly Public Hearing and September 1 BOCC meeting.
28 • November 4, 2015—Ordinance Review Committee
29 • January 6, 2016— Planning Board recommendation
30
31 Proposed Amendments
32 • Proposed Revisions to:
33 o Section 5.2, Table of Permitted Uses
34 o Section 5.4, Standards for Temporary Uses
35 o Section 5.5, Standards for Residential Uses
36 o Section 10.1, Definitions
37 • Packet includes the proposed amendments in "track changes" format.
38 • Renumbering and reformatting of identified Sections.
39
40 Proposed Amendments
41 • Creates an entirely new land use, temporary custodial care units.
42 o Combines temporary health care structure standards outlined in Session Law 2014-
43 94 and existing standards related to temporary mobile home units (custodial care)
44 contained in Section 5.4.4 of the UDO.
45 • Allows for temporary health care structures and temporary mobile homes up to 1,000
46 square feet in size to be placed as an accessory use to an existing single family dwelling
47 unit.
48 • Removes the required Class B Special Use Permit for temporary mobile homes currently
49 contained in the UDO.
4
1 • Addresses items of concern identified by the BOCC at the May and September
2 meetings.
3 o Removes the relative or legal guardian requirement
4 o Removes the state residency requirement
5 o Allows for a unit to remain on the property for up to 180 days after the mentally or
6 physically impaired person is no longer receiving care.
7 o Allows for more than one individual to reside in the unit.
8 o Increases the number of unrelated persons that can live in a dwelling unit from three
9 to five based on the North Carolina Residential State Building Code.
10
11 Public Notification
12 • Completed in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO
13 o Newspaper legal ads for two successive weeks
14
15 Joint Planning Area Partners
16 • Proposed amendments provided on December 22, 2015
17 o No Comments have been received.
18
19 Recommendation
20 • The Administration recommends the Board:
21 o Receive the proposed amendments.
22 o Conduct the public hearing and accept comment on the proposed amendments.
23 o Close the public hearing.
24 o Decide on one of the following options:
25 Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency
26 and Ordinance.
27 Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date.
28 Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose.
29
30 Commissioner Dorosin said he appreciated the work that has gone into this item. He
31 clarified that the unit can stay on the property up to 180 days after the person is no longer
32 receiving care.
33 Ashley Moncado said correct.
34 Commissioner Dorosin asked if it is no longer a requirement that a person be related.
35 He said if one builds one of these structures and the person needing care improved, the facility
36 can still be used if another person needing care utilizes the structure within 180 days.
37 Ashley Moncado said yes.
38 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the structure stays within its envisioned use, it does not
39 necessarily have to be temporary, even though it is called temporary.
40 Ashley Moncado said the main thing that makes it temporary is that it is required to be
41 on a trailer.
42 Commissioner Dorosin said it is temporary in that it is not attached to the ground. He
43 said he would like clarification regarding the number of unrelated persons being able to reside
44 together.
45 Ashley Moncado said the change in this number relates to any single-family structure not
46 just to a temporary one. She said this change was necessary in general but fits in well within
47 this text amendment.
48 Commissioner Dorosin said the temporary health care unit would have no effect as they
49 would be living in a separate dwelling. He asked if four people lived in a house and two people
50 lived in a temporary custodial care unit, all would still be in compliance with the amended UDO.
5
1 Ashley Moncado said yes, noting one must meet zoning requirements, as well as any
2 environmental health issues regarding water and septic.
3 Commissioner Dorosin asked if he could have clarification regarding the reference to the
4 building code.
5 Ashley Moncado said North Carolina State building code states only up to five unrelated
6 persons can live within a residential structure. She said when there are six or more unrelated
7 people, the structure is then considered a boarding or rooming house and this has different
8 building code standards.
9 Commissioner Dorosin said this could lead to some interesting dilemmas but he will
10 leave it for the State to work out. He asked if the County could increase the number to greater
11 than five in a residential setting.
12 Ashley Moncado said it would be named a rooming house in UDO and this is a use that
13 is already allowed for. She said the number cannot go above five unrelated persons but she
14 understands potential complications, such as a family with 15 related members.
15 Commissioner Dorosin said the question of how much a septic system can
16 accommodate is not really being considered but rather whether or not people are related.
17 Commissioner Rich said after 180 days the structure needs to come down or a different
18 impaired person needs to assume occupancy. She asked if there is any provision to prevent a
19 person from turning this temporary structure into a business.
20 Ashley Moncado said she reached out to the Department of Aging and there is no such
21 provision. She thought there may be a State law but there is not.
22 Commissioner Rich said one could set up a business offering this new accommodation
23 forever.
24 Ashley Moncado said the Planning Board discussed possible language that would
25 restrict the exchange of money.
26 Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director, said someone could rent a room out
27 within their home for this type of care. He said the question of ADA access comes into play
28 when the building moves to boarding house status and it is not easy to convert a house.
29 Commissioner Rich asked if the intention of the State is known.
30 Craig Benedict said the goal was to have a temporary freestanding structure that a
31 house may not be able to accommodate due to needed ramps or wide doorways. He said it
32 was an option for temporary independent units as opposed to the conversion of a house.
33 Commissioner Price clarified that the caregiver is the person that permanently resides in
34 main house.
35 Ashley Moncado said yes.
36 Commissioner Price asked if the homeowner was the one in need of the temporary
37 structure, could a caregiver live there as well.
38 Ashley Moncado yes, a temporary caregiver could live in both the permanent dwelling,
39 or in the temporary structure, alongside the person needing care.
40
41 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
42 close the public hearing.
43
44 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
45
46 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin
47 to adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency and the
48 Ordinance.
49
50 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
51
6
1 D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING
2
3 The public hearing was adjourned at 7:26 p.m.
4
5 E. WORK SESSION
6 1. Review of Minimum Lot Size and Density Allowances for Subdivisions —To review
7 and discuss the County's subdivision development and review processes focusing
8 primarily on minimum lot size and density limitations as they relate to the clustering of
9 proposed subdivision lots.
10
11 David Stancil, Department of the Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation
12 (DEAPR) Director provided background regarding the Rural Character Study. He said in 1987,
13 the BOCC created a Joint Planning Area with the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. He said
14 part of this Joint Planning Area was the designation of the Rural Buffer. He said the mechanism
15 to implement this rural buffer was the implementation of the two-acre minimum lot size. He said
16 a study committee was created to consider how best to protect the rural integrity of the land. He
17 said the first area focused on the rural buffer, and the second area focused on the remaining
18 rural areas of the County. He said, simply put, the conclusion was to create a sliding scale
19 between open space and the ability to achieve a smaller lot size. He said a great deal of
20 thought went into the decisions and the process was a high point in his time in Orange County.
21 Craig Benedict said Orange County's population has increased by about 50,000 people
22 since the rural character study was completed. He said the majority of these people went into
23 the cities but about 45% went into the unincorporated area. He said the original goals of the
24 study started out as an open space preservation plan, balancing agricultural protection. He said
25 the interesting part of this report is that, in large part, cooperation with the plan was voluntary.
26 He said developers would submit two plans: a conventional one (10 acres, divided into five 2-
27 acre lots), and a flexible plan (10 acres, with five 1-acre lots, and five acres of open space). He
28 said the plans were reviewed, and the decision of which plan to use was placed on the
29 developer. He said initially the majority of developers chose the conventional plans but slowly
30 moved towards flexible plans. He said the process moved from voluntary to being a bit more
31 direct, in order to achieve the outlined goals.
32 Craig Benedict said the conversation now shifts to the next 50,000 people moving into
33 Orange County and considering where they will live. He said projections are for lots of single-
34 family development to occur in the rural buffer due to demand. He said one of the goals from
35 the rural character study that remains in place today is the growth management goal: to have
36 urban growth boundaries; to have efficient forms of development; balance the natural resource
37 goals with pattern development and growth management.
38 Commissioner Rich said there was previous discussion about the gross overstatement
39 of projected population growth. She asked if there was an update on these numbers.
40 Craig Benedict said the original numbers were done for the entire triangle region. He
41 said he will give a presentation on March 2 to Planning Board about how these numbers were
42 developed for the 2040 plan. He said the 2045 plan is currently being worked on and it is hoped
43 that the control totals, which are provided to the County, can be reviewed and more appropriate
44 estimates garnered. He said the formula for the projections (one house per every two acres),
45 cannot be altered, but the numbers can be reviewed for realistic estimates.
46 Michael Harvey, Orange County Current Planning, reviewed the following background
47 and PowerPoint slides:
48
49 PURPOSE: To review and discuss the County's subdivision development and review
50 processes focusing primarily on minimum lot size and density limitations as they relate to the
51 clustering of subdivision lots. This item was developed to address a petition submitted by
7
1 Commissioner Pelissier to identify opportunities and constraints within current regulations
2 associated with the clustering subdivision lots. This represents one component of a larger
3 discussion related to reducing development costs in an effort to promote affordable housing
4 development.
5
6 February 18, 2016
7 AGENDA ITEM: E-1
8 WORK SESSION:
9 Review of Minimum Lot Size and Density Allowances for Subdivisions
10
11 What is a Subdivision:
12 • All divisions of a parcel of land into two or more lots for immediate or future
13 sale/development,
14 • Includes division of land involving dedication/change in existing streets.
15 • Terms `subdivision' (i.e. process of creating lots) and `development' have become
16 synonymous. They do not necessarily mean the same thing (i.e. just because you are
17 subdividing does not mean you are engaged in development).
18
19 Subdivision Classification(s)
20 • Exempt (i.e. State law indicates not a regulated activity) includes:
21 - Recombination of previously subdivided property (number of lots are not
22 increased),
23 - Creation of parcels in excess of 10 acres in area,
24 o STAFF NOTE: there have been issues with property owners coming back to
25 subdivide these 10 acre parcels as they have to bring lots/roadways into
26 compliance with UDO.
27 - Public acquisition by purchase of strips of land for widening or opening streets,
28 - Division of a tract of land in single ownership where the property is no greater
29 than 2 acres in area into not more than 3 lots if no street right-of-way dedication
30 is involved and resultant lots are equal to or exceed County regulations (i.e.
31 minimum lot area and width, etc.).
32
33 Commissioner Dorosin asked if subdivision regulations apply, even when it is less than
34 three lots in the subdivision.
35 Michael Harvey said no, the property can be no greater than two acres for the last
36 exemption.
37 Michael Harvey resumed the presentation:
38
39 • Minor:
40 - Division proposing 1 to 5 individual parcels,
41 - Reviewed and acted upon by staff. No board review (i.e. BOCC or Planning
42 Board) required.
43 • Major:
44 - Division proposing 6 or more individual parcels,
45 - Typically Planning Board approves a concept plan/makes recommendation on
46 preliminary plat application. BOCC makes final decision,
47 - Required review process related to number of proposed lots.
48 Major Subdivision can be processed as Class A Special Use Permit or Conditional Use
49 Rezoning based on number of proposed lots and location in County (i.e. rural versus
50 urban areas).
51
8
1 Subdivision Types:
2 • Standard Subdivision: Lots comply with established dimensional requirements for the
3 general use zoning district in which the property is located as well as the standards
4 detailed within Article 7 of the UDO.
5 • Cluster Subdivision: Required lot sizes, area, and setbacks can be reduced if at least
6 20% of the gross land area designated as common open space; and
7 • Flexible Development: Required lot sizes, area, and setbacks can be varied to
8 accommodate on-site features. Three types:
9 - Estate Lot (min. 4 acre lot size - only 2 acres developable)
10 - Flexible Development (33% open space required)
11 - Village (mixed use project- multiple housing types and land uses allowable)
12
13 Example: Henderson Woods
14 • Located in Rural Buffer Land Use Category (Comprehensive Plan) and Rural area per
15 Growth Management System Map,
16 • Density limited to 1 unit for every 2 acres per Joint Planning Land Use Plan/Agreement,
17 • Property was 48 acres in size resulting in 24 lots potentially available for development
18 based on density (48 acres / 2 = 24 lots),
19 • Minimum required lot size is 1 acre based on Joint Planning Land Use Plan/Agreement.
20 - STAFF COMMENT: Per existing subdivision regulations lot size, in certain
21 circumstances, can be reduced to as much as 65% of required area outside of
22 protected watersheds.
23 EXAMPLES (graphic)
24
25 EXAMPLES (graphic)
26
27 DIFFERENCES -CONVENTIONAL VERSUS FLEXIBLE (CONSERVATION CLUSTER)
28 Conventional subdivision:
29 • Open space part of individual lots. Can be disturbed,
30 • Subdivision encompasses entire parcel,
31 • More impervious surface area /land clearing/grading required (i.e. longer roads and
32 driveways),
33 • Greater impact to existing foliage and more acres `developed' under conventional
34 subdivision design.
35 Flexible (Conservation-cluster):
36 • Smaller lots and separate open space (less likely to be disturbed),
37 • Open space is now `shared common area',
38 • Subdivision is condensed requiring less land clearing and grading,
39 • Less impervious surface area required,
40 • Greater protection for existing foliage and less overall `development' on property.
41
42 Commissioner Dorosin referred to the conventional model and asked if the open space
43 requirement only has to be met during construction.
44 Michael Harvey said there is no open space requirement in the conventional model. He
45 said the track is developed to the fullest extent.
46 Commissioner Dorosin referred to the flexible model and asked if the separate open
47 space must be maintained and undisturbed.
48 Michael Harvey said yes.
49 Commissioner Rich asked if Henderson Woods is conventional or flexible.
50 Michael Harvey said flexible, but construction has not yet begun.
51 Commissioner Dorosin asked if either model could have been approved.
9
1 Michael Harvey said developers have the right to bring forth a conventional subdivision
2 design but it may not successfully obtain a staff or Planning Board recommendation.
3 Commissioner Jacobs said the County can state its design preference and the flexible
4 model was promoted and encouraged in the rural character study.
5 Michael Harvey said in his tenure at Orange County, he has mostly seen either flexible
6 development subdivisions with open space or the conservation subdivision. He said until 2013,
7 the Joint Planning Agreement did not allow clustering in the northern portion of the rural buffer.
8 Chair McKee said historically, the buyer's preference was for a large lot configuration
9 with clearly identified corners. He asked if there has been a transition in what buyers are
10 wanting.
11 Michael Harvey said possibly but he believes the biggest issue is cost. He said the
12 conventional model requires greater expense by the developer and greater adherence to
13 separate development regulatory standards.
14 Commissioner Rich asked if the open space needs to be maintained.
15 Michael Harvey said yes. He said if a storm comes through and knocks down trees
16 there is an obligation to reestablish the required buffers and open space.
17 Commissioner Dorosin asked if there is a density bonus.
18 Michael Harvey said the only recognized density options are for affordable housing or if
19 a greater area of open space if preserved. He said density bumps are not allowed in protected
20 watershed areas as density is already set. He said density bumps are also not allowed in the
21 northern part of the rural buffer as density is set by the joint planning land use plan and
22 agreement.
23 Commissioner Dorosin asked if density bumps are not allowed anywhere in the rural
24 buffer.
25 Michael Harvey said correct.
26 Commissioner Dorosin said it is cheaper for developers to do this but the end result is
27 very expensive housing.
28 Commissioner Jacobs said there are different kinds of open space. He said the rural
29 character study recommended 1.94 acre zoning throughout the County, which is the average lot
30 size in Orange County.
31 Commissioner Jacobs said water and sewer management can be tricky but there are
32 some ideas about this in the rural character study.
33 Commissioner Dorosin asked if there are consequences when a homeowners'
34 association fails to maintain the open space, a stormwater system, etc.
35 Commissioner Jacobs said to call Michael Harvey. He added that he wanted the County
36 to review homeowners' agreements to insure that such problems are avoided.
37 Commissioner Rich said she lives in a neighborhood with dedicated open space which
38 the entire community commits to maintain with twice annual workdays. She asked if farms can
39 be counted as open space.
40 Michael Harvey said farms can be counted as part of secondary open space in flexible
41 development projects.
42 Commissioner Jacobs said it may be something as simple as hay fields but it can lead to
43 potential revenue.
44 Commissioner Price referred to the discussion between conventional and flexible
45 models. She said there are developers that are happy with the flexible model and others that
46 were not, as it reduced the number of homes they could build in the development due to septic
47 issues.
48 Commissioner Jacobs said some subdivisions use the open space as secondary septic
49 areas which allows for no loss in density.
50 Commissioner Pelissier asked if any changes were made to septic rules, would there be
51 any benefit to changing the rule for minor subdivision with five lots or less.
10
1 Michael Harvey said globally there will be staff recommendations that will change
2 everything.
3 Chair McKee instructed the Manager to have John Roberts send a memo to the Board of
4 County Commissioners (BOCC) regarding the court case in which the affect of septic on
5 community systems was litigated.
6 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is a percentage break down for the type of
7 subdivisions being built.
8 Michael Harvey said there is 30% major subdivision, 40% minor, and the rest are
9 exempt. He said of the 40% minor, most are three lots or less, whether due to density, cost or
10 code requirements.
11
12 Potential Constraints
13 • Within Watershed Protection Overlay Districts, parcels being subdivided cannot be
14 reduced below 40,000 sq.ft. of land area if served by individual septic systems.
15 - There is currently no allowance for off-site septic systems to be considered
16 with respect to allowing for further reduction in required lot sizes.
17 - Please note off-site well and septic systems are specifically prohibited
18 within the University Lake Protected and Critical Watershed Protection
19 Overlay Districts.
20 • Current private road justification standards only allows for a minimal reduction of
21 required lot size with open space reservation. Smallest allowable lot, after process is
22 completed, is 60,000 sq.ft. (minimum 50% of parcel being subdivided has to be
23 designated as open space)
24
25 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there are incentives to do it that way.
26 Michael Harvey said a subdivision is a subdivision and there are no incentives currently.
27 He said if any expedited permit reviews were to be offered, he would personally suggest it being
28 done for flexible development options.
29 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the point about roads could be clarified.
30 Michael Harvey said if there are between four and twelve lots, design elements must be
31 adhered to. He said the rationale is to preserve the existing rural aesthetic as much as
32 possible. He said there are options that allow for the dedication of open space through the
33 private road justification process, and reduced lot size. He said if a subdivision has 13 or more
34 lots, a public road must be made that meets the Department of Transportation standards.
35 Commissioner Rich asked if there is a difference between a private road and a long
36 driveway.
37 Michael Harvey said the number of lots that the road serves.
38 Commissioner Rich asked if a long driveway serves two lots, would it be considered a
39 private road.
40 Michael Harvey said no, joint driveways are permissible. He said if there are three lots
41 or more, then it becomes a roadway.
42 Chair McKee asked if Michael Harvey could speak to Class B roads, in that context.
43 Michael Harvey said a Class B road is a 50-foot right of way, with 12 feet wide of
44 improved travel way, which could be gravel, pavement, concrete, etc. He said this road serves
45 1 to 5 lots. He said 6 to 12 lots would be served by a Class A road, which is 18 feet of improved
46 travel way with any 50-foot right of way.
47 Chair McKee asked if Michael Harvey could speak to a 10-acre lots and the requirement
48 of a driveway.
49 Michael Harvey said if one has a 200 acre tract of land and creates 20 10-acre lots, one
50 is exempt from the provisions of the subdivision regulation. He said the County cannot compel
51 the installation of any type of roadway.
11
1 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there are specific dimensions for a public road.
2 Michael Harvey said 22 feet wide of pavement and a 50-foot right of way. He said curb
3 gutter and stormwater systems may change this slightly.
4 Commissioner Jacobs said it is cheaper to do a private road and such roads also
5 provide for the least rural impact. He said as the County moves forward, it is good to consider
6 how to balance adequate public safety with minimizing environmental impact. He said the idea
7 of density bonuses and expedited reviews should be reviewed in the future. He referred to page
8 22, noting the suggestion of possible open space tax breaks.
9 Craig Benedict said there has been previous discussion about how open spaces are
10 taxed. He said the tax assessor does not tax the open space but transfers some of that value
11 onto the individual lots.
12 Commissioner Jacobs said it might be interesting to monitor this process during the
13 revaluation.
14 Michael Harvey resumed the power point presentation:
15
16 • Within the Cluster Subdivision type lots can only be reduced to 40,000 sq.ft. in size with
17 the reservation of a minimum of 20% Open Space.
18 - This Subdivision Type has applicability within the Rural Buffer (RB) general
19 use zoning category but nowhere else.
20 - Staff has been successful in encouraging the Flexible Development-
21 Conservation Cluster model where lots can be reduced to 40,000 sq.ft.with
22 the reservation of 33% open space (i.e. Henderson Woods, Annandale at
23 Creek Wood, etc.).
24
25 OPTIONS
26 • Eliminate the Cluster Development subdivision type and promote the Conservation-
27 cluster Flexible Development subdivision option.
28 • Allow for greater reduction of lot sizes through the Flexible Development design process
29 thereby increasing potential for additional open space.
30 • Allow/recognize the use of off-site septic for wastewater processing, which could allow
31 for further reduction of lot sizes - including within watershed protection overlay districts.
32 • Re-assess private road development standards.
33 • Review potential for creation/adoption of a Rural Master Plan Conditional Zoning district.
34
35 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there are advantages and disadvantages to the County
36 regarding private roads.
37 Craig Benedict said under the new storm water controls, it will behoove the developer to
38 have the road drain to a certain location and have a master stormwater system. He said new
39 regulations are being reviewed, and considering whether each lot should have its own
40 stormwater controls, or if a master system can control both the roadway disturbance, and that
41 on the individual lots. He said there is new technology and new regulations which are favoring
42 the master system level.
43 Michael Harvey said staff will be developing and reviewing a rural master plan
44 conditional zoning district with the BOCC.
45
46 Remember
47 • Staff is not recommending changing established density standards. There will need to
48 be additional discussion of this topic before action is taken.
49 • Proposed modifications cannot impact property in the Rural Buffer. In order to change
50 density or minimum lot sizes for this area the Joint Planning Land Use Plan and
12
1 Agreement will have to be amended, requiring approval of all participating entities (i.e.
2 Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro) after a joint public hearing.
3 • While this may promote development of `affordable housing' these issues represent only
4 1 small component of housing costs. This issue transcends Planning and will not be
5 resolved solely through altering existing land use regulations.
6
7 Recommendation
8 The Manager recommends that the Board receive the information and provide
9 comments/direction on potential subdivision amendment(s).
10
11 Chair McKee said he appreciated the presentation, but he is not sure that the changes
12 being discussed will affect the affordability of the lots. He said he understands that affordable
13 housing will not be developed in the northern part of the County as it is away from water and
14 sewer.
15 Michael Harvey said this is just one aspect of a global issue that warrants discussion.
16 He said if there is significant reduction in lots sizes with the implementation of innovative, off-site
17 septic with increased density allowances and with incentives for developers, there may be an
18 improvement with respect to the cost of the lot. He said the value of land in a protected area
19 versus an unprotected area versus the rural buffer will all be different.
20 Commissioner Pelissier said this has been a great presentation and it was done in
21 response to her petition. She said the original intent of her petition was not so much affordable
22 housing but rather preservation of rural character. She said the hope of an affordable housing
23 byproduct was secondary.
24 Commissioner Pelissier asked if there are any successful examples of the options
25 outlined this evening from other locations.
26 Craig Benedict said several examples have been received that included a variety of the
27 options.
28 Commissioner Pelissier asked if there is anything that could be developed to
29 differentiate the size of a development.
30 Michael Harvey said there is some viability with this idea. He said further discussion is
31 needed regarding incentivizing developers.
32 Commissioner Pelissier said in her tenure on the BOCC, every major subdivision has
33 been high-end housing. She asked if mixed housing could be incentivized to allow for greater
34 diversity of price points. She asked if this idea is even realistic.
35 Michael Harvey said there is probably no incentive that can be offered unless the County
36 is purchasing the property. He said the value of land is the value of land.
37 Commissioner Jacobs asked if permanent protected open space is valued by Orange
38 County, could the BOCC direct the appraiser to appraise at a reduced value for permanently
39 protected open space in a subdivision.
40 Commissioner Price said conservation easements could perhaps reduce costs. She
41 said the Community Home Trust has several homes that are mixed into the high-end
42 subdivisions. She said she does not promote the idea but noted it points to an example.
43 Commissioner Dorosin referred to Commissioner Jacobs' point about incentivizing. He
44 said it is important to determine what the County wants to incentivize. He said he would like to
45 address the question of affordable housing. He said if the main concern is environmental
46 preservation then it is not practically possible to have affordable housing in these areas. He
47 said it may be worth exploring how development in the environmentally sensitive areas can
48 subsidize the building of affordable housing elsewhere. He said it may be an impact fee or a
49 cost in exchange for the incentives. He said he is very excited about the concept of off-site
50 septic.
51 Craig Benedict said there is currently a multi-department effort on affordable housing.
13
1 He said the ingredients of housing costs are: land, public or private infrastructure, entitlements
2 in permit fees, cost of housing, cost of labor, profit margins, and market aspects. He said the
3 areas, which can be affected and changed, are being considered.
4 Commissioner Dorosin said he would love to hear on going updates from the multi-
5 department effort.
6 Commissioner Rich said when the BOCC approved the development of Whitfield the
7 developer made voluntary contributions to affordable housing. She said the idea of affordable
8 housing in the rural part of the County should be considered as well as who is being served by
9 the affordable housing.
10 Craig Benedict said staff has reviewed the inventory of affordable housing in the rural
11 parts of the County. He said a comprehensive picture will be presented to the BOCC.
12 Chair McKee suggested breaking affordable housing into two sections: low income
13 affordable housing (Community Home Trust, Habitat, etc.); and work force affordable housing
14 ($125,000 to $150,000 homes).
15 Michael Harvey said looking at the comprehensive plan and the land use map, high
16 intensity housing, in the 10 to 20 year transitions, is the highway 70 corridor, certain areas near
17 Hillsborough and Durham, and some areas of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. He said it is clustered
18 in these areas as the services are located there as well.
19 Chair McKee asked if alternative water and sewer systems are being considered, can
20 work force affordable housing be offered outside these high dollar areas just mentioned by
21 Michael Harvey.
22 Michael Harvey said one of the rationales for recommending a rural residential master
23 plan development process is to allow that type of dialogue to occur. He said it is important to
24 remember that there are some intrinsic limits to such a dialogue, based on a density discussion
25 that must occur at another work session. He said the village concept is a possibility if the
26 infrastructure obstacles can be overcome.
27 Chair McKee said some smaller local builders may be attracted to these options.
28 Commissioner Jacobs said this discussion occurred at the BOCC retreat three years ago
29 and the idea of clustered development with on-site community systems was considered. He
30 said it is time to move past discussion and to try something.
31 Commissioner Price said she would like to try the cluster developments with a small
32 number of homes. She said those of modest income, who wish to live in a rural setting, should
33 be able to do so.
34 Commissioner Rich referred to the map on page 77 and asked if Michael Harvey could
35 clarify the dark grey areas.
36 Michael Harvey said these are transition areas that are managed, from a zoning
37 standpoint, by either Chapel Hill or Carrboro. He said the County has granted authority for
38 those areas to be developed in accordance with the joint planning land use planning agreement.
39 Commissioner Rich referred to the triangle on the bottom of the map, which is identified
40 as rural buffer. She asked if there is a reason this portion of land is considered as such.
41 Michael Harvey said that goes back to the joint planning land use planning agreement.
42 He said the area was rural in nature, with lots of farms.
43 Chair McKee recalled the discussion about the extension of the water line for fire
44 protection in that area.
45 Commissioner Rich said this triangular area seems out of character given that Chatham
46 County is developing right up to the edge of it.
47 Craig Benedict said it is known as the "lost triangle".
48 Michael Harvey said based on this work session, the BOCC desires a presentation
49 regarding how the options discussed this evening will look and a future work session on density.
50 Commissioner Jacobs said he hoped this discussion would include tax implications of
51 the various possibilities.
14
1 Commissioner Price said she would like to hear more about the cluster development of
2 affordable homes.
3 Craig Benedict said tonight's meeting was productive.
4
5 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs
6 to adjourn the work session at 9:00 p.m.
7
8 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
9
10 Earl McKee, Chair
11
12
13 David Hunt,
14 Deputy Clerk to the Board
15
1 Attachment 3
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 HILLSBOROUGH BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
6 JOINT MEETING
7 February 25, 2016
8 7:00 p.m.
9
10 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Joint Meeting with the Town of
11 Hillsborough Commissioners on Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 7:00 p.m., in the Whitted
12 Building, in Hillsborough, North Carolina.
13
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Earl McKee and Commissioners Mia
15 Burroughs, Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Renee Price, Bernadette Pelissier and Penny Rich
16 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
17 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
18 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy Manager Travis
19 Myren, and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified
20 appropriately below)
21 HILLSBOROUGH COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Mayor Tom Stevens and Commissioners
22 Kathleen Ferguson, Mark Bell, Brian Lowen, Evelyn Lloyd, and Jenn Weaver
23 HILLSBOROUGH COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
24 HILLSBOROUGH STAFF PRESENT: Margaret Hauth, Planning Director
25 HILLSBOROUGH TOWN STAFF ABSENT: Town Manager, Eric Peterson
26
27 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m.
28
29 Welcome and Opening Remarks
30 Mayor Stevens welcomed all to tonight's joint meeting.
31 Mayor Stevens said it was 10 years ago that the first joint meeting was planned, and
32 tonight's agenda is full, but is an opportunity to check in. Mayor Stevens asked staff to give
33 summaries of their items to allow for more conversation between Commissioners.
34 Mayor Stevens noted and reviewed the following hand outs at their places:
35
36 1. Strategy map: one page document, from which all that is done in Hillsborough flows. It is
37 the overview of the Town.
38 Mayor Stevens said the objectives line is the most important, and he summarized the
39 items on the document. He said the theme for Hillsborough is growth. He noted Hillsborough
40 is the slowest growing town in the triangle, but will have a steep growth curve in the next 10
41 years before plateauing.
42 2. 2030 plan: very much aligned with the strategy map. There are five goals: keeping
43 Hillsborough's sense of place; economic and cultural diversity; community sustainability;
44 connectivity; and forward moving action plan.
45
46 Chair McKee echoed Mayor Stevens comments. Chair McKee said growth does not need
47 to occur in silos.
48
49 1. Economic Development
50 a) County/Town Updates (Strategies; Collaboration; Concerns; Questions)
1 COUNTY Staff: Steve Brantley; TOWN Staff: Shannan Campbell
2 Steve Brantley, Orange County Economic Development Director, said Orange County
3 and Hillsborough were both involved in the various topics listed below. He said much of this
4 activity involved Article 46 taxes. He reviewed the following information:
5
6 County/Town Updates (Strategies; Collaboration; Concerns; Questions)
7 Throughout 2015, Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough have benefited from a number
8 of successful economic development initiatives which supported the growth and retention of
9 area small businesses, the promotion of agriculture, arts & tourism, an increase in business
10 recruitment & investment prospect activity, and greater mutual collaboration between the
11 County's & Town's economic development partners in government and the Chamber of
12 Commerce. A significant portion of this effort has been funded from the 2011 referendum that
13 created the 1/4 cent sales tax proceeds to benefit economic development and education, called
14 "Article 46" funding. Examples are as follows:
15
16 Financial Assistance Provided to Small Businesses in Hillsborough
17 Since the creation of the Orange County Small Business Loan Program several years ago, up
18 until the current period, Hillsborough small businesses have received approximately $500,000
19 in total loans to retain and support their growth. This lending activity within the Town represents
20 almost 80% of all loans approved Countywide for small business borrowers. Recent loan
21 activity includes the following Hillsborough firms:
22 o MasterPeace Barber Shop - home-based barber shop
23 o Accidental Baker- gourmet cracker food processing
24 o Beau Catering - upscale special events catering
25 o Bacon Meat Market - deli &fresh local meat market (opening soon)
26 o Seal The Season — Piedmont Food & Agricultural Processing Center
27 o tenant (frozen blueberries & vegetables)
28 o Mystery Brewery & Tap Room - microbrewery & retail store
29
30 • The Article 46-funded Orange County Small Business Investment Grant Program began
31 to make operational business grants of up to $10,000 per applicant in 2015. County-
32 wide, the new grant program awarded $245,840 to 39 total growing firms. Of this
33 amount, a total of nine (9) Hillsborough small businesses received $65,352 in total grant
34 support, which was 26.5% of all small business grants made last year. Those firms are
35 as follows:
36 o 360 Degree Health - health care provider
37 o Kyookz - food processing
38 o Music Maker Relief Foundation - nonprofit
39 o Q Garden - retail store
40 o MasterPeace Barber Shop - home-based barber shop
41 o Regulator Brewing Company - microbrewery
42 o Seal The Season - Piedmont Food & Agricultural Processing Center
43 o tenant (frozen blueberries & vegetables)
44 o Accidental Baker- gourmet cracker food processing
45 o Beau Catering - upscale special events catering
46
47 • Also in 2015, the Orange County Agriculture Economic Development Grant Program
48 provided a total of 20 awards exceeding $157,178 for area farms and related agricultural
49 food systems businesses. Approximately eight (8) of those recipients have a
50 Hillsborough mailing address and received 60% of all agricultural grants County-wide.
1
2
3 Business Recruitment Activity
4 • In 2015 the Orange County Economic Development office received over 65 separate
5 requests (by the State of North Carolina's Economic Development Partnership agency,
6 Duke Energy, commercial developers, brokers, etc.) seeking information on available
7 sites and buildings in the County. This activity is a 2x increase over 2014, a 3x increase
8 over 2013, and a 4x increase over 2012.
9 • For 2015 and into 2016 thus far, Hillsborough was represented with twenty one (21)
10 separate "green field" site data submissions to inquirers, and regular site locations
11 provided by the County included Waterstone (tracts 8 & 9), Oakdale Village, Tryon
12 Business Center at Meadowmont, N.C. 57 & N.C. 86 site, 2701 Old N.C. 86, Cardinal
13 Drive (located behind Holiday Inn Express), Owls Wood (N.C. 86 & U.S. 70
14 intersection), and sites adjacent to 1-40 & Old N.C. 86 south.
15 • Over the same 13 month period, information on available buildings in Hillsborough were
16 submitted to investment prospects eighteen (18) times. Those locations included the
17 24,000 square foot warehouse on Elizabeth Brady Road, the 89,000 square foot
18 warehouse on Eno Street (former warehouse location for"A Southern Season"), and
19 locations at Alex Gold's Eno River Development.
20 • At least three (3) prospective hotel investors have scouted sites in Hillsborough with the
21 active site selection assistance of Orange County Economic Development, Town staff
22 and realtors.
23 • Within the next several weeks, the confidential firm holding a purchase option on the
24 89,000 square foot Eno Street warehouse is expected to make an announcement with
25 its plans. Orange County Economic Development has assisted this firm for two (2) years
26 to find a suitable office and warehouse location, and introduced the firm to this location a
27 year ago.
28 • Utility line extension (sewer) to sites south of 1-40 and Old N.C. 86 are needed in order
29 to best market that property to high-caliber commercial, headquarters, research &
30 development, light clean manufacturing, and retail investment prospects seeking
31 locations with interstate exposure, highway access and close proximity to Hillsborough's
32 new UNC Health Care facility.
33
34 Agriculture
35 • The Piedmont Food Agriculture Processing Center (PFAP) has recently assumed new
36 local management, led by Eric Hallman, with additional support being provided by the
37 Orange County Manager's Office, Orange County Economic Development's agriculture
38 staff specialist (Mike Ortosky) and several County Commissioners. Internal discussions
39 are ongoing related to ways to assist and retain PFAP tenants as they begin to transition
40 as they grow.
41 • Several Hillsborough and/or PFAP-based food processing firms, and neighboring farms
42 are recipients of the County's Article 46-funded Small Business Loan and Grant
43 programs.
44
45 Arts
46 • The Orange County Arts Commission made five (5) arts grants in the spring of 2015
47 totaling $9,300 to five (5) Hillsborough arts grant nonprofits.
48 • In addition, four (4) arts grants totaling $3,825 in Orange County funds were awarded in
49 the fall of 2015.
50
1
2 Collaboration Between Orange County, Town of Hillsborough, & Hillsborough/Orange
3 County Chamber of Commerce
4 • In 2015 Orange County Economic Development funded an event in support of the
5 Hillsborough/Orange County Chamber of Commerce's special membership breakfast
6 that brought in guest speaker Chris Chung, C.E.O. of the State of North Carolina's
7 Economic Development Partnership. Orange County also favorably responded to a
8 sponsorship request by the Chamber related to the Riverwalk nighttime movie series.
9 • The County & Town currently conduct "pre-development" meetings with new retail and
10 commercial business ventures planning to locate in Hillsborough, by convening
11 members from Orange County Planning & Inspections Department, Economic
12 Development, Health Department, the Town's Planning staff, Fire Marshal, Zoning &
13 others. One example of new Hillsborough firm that benefitted from the pre-development
14 meeting process is Colorado Burrito Restaurant. The Town and County are going to be
15 coordinating more on similar initiatives as part of a more comprehensive customer
16 service friendly approach to new development in Hillsborough.
17 • The Planning & Inspections departments for the County & Town are working together on
18 new projects that wish to become a part of the local business community, such as the
19 ongoing Bellevue Apartment project in West Hillsborough, the purchase option by a
20 confidential business for the 89,000 square foot warehouse on Eno Street, and the now
21 public news of a Sheetz convenience store & gas station that has submitted a building
22 permit with the County.
23 • Increased interaction is occurring among economic development partners with the
24 Town, County, and Chamber.
25
26 Shannan Campbell, the new Hillsborough Economic Development Planner, said that
27 Steve Brantley covered many of their collaborative efforts.
28 Commissioner Ferguson asked if staff could elaborate regarding sites and land
29 inquiries.
30 Steve Brantley said the County does not have an extensive inventory of large buildings.
31 He said the few that do exist are the Southern Season location, flex space at Eno River
32 Development, Meadowlands, Valley Forge Road, and some offices on Churton Street. He said
33 Waterstone is the premier site, as well as sites at highways 86 and 57; and sites south of 1-40,
34 where there is water, but no sewer yet. He said sewer would need to go under 1-40.
35 Commissioner Ferguson referred to the high profile sites, and asked if those businesses
36 interested in these sites would have 50-100 employees.
37 Steve Brantley said yes, but there is also retail and hotel interest in Waterstone.
38 Commissioner Ferguson asked if there are any other sites besides Waterstone, which
39 can be used to attract 50-100 level employers.
40 Steve Brantley said there are a couple, one of which is next to the steel chainsaw site,
41 and another is the quadrants next to Waterstone. He said Hillsborough has a diversity of sites.
42 Commissioner Price asked if inquirers seek particular assets, or if reasons have been
43 given when Hillsborough is not the location chosen by a company.
44 Steve Brantley said this business is competitive, and it takes a long time for businesses
45 to look around for sites. He said businesses are looking here, in adjacent counties, and around
46 the country. He said Orange County has a lot to offer.
47 Commissioner Price asked if businesses are seeking rooftops, ready made sites, or
48 lower land prices.
49 Steve Brantley said he hears a persistent desire for more hotel opportunities and
50 believes these will happen going forward.
1 Commissioner Dorosin referred to the chart that Mayor Stevens handed out regarding
2 gradual growth over time. He said there are several projects in the works currently, and asked
3 if there is a more accurate sense of growth; for example, a big jump next year, and then
4 leveling out thereafter, followed by another big jump. He asked if there are areas that the
5 County should be anticipating currently, as the budget process begins.
6 Mayor Stevens said there is a strategic growth plan, which involved the pulling in of the
7 Town's services boundary. He said the two greatest constraints to growth are water capacity
8 and traffic. He said these constraints limit the population growth. He said the main interest
9 being expressed is in residential. He said1000 units have already been approved, with
10 potentially 1000 more to come. He said there will be pressure to grow to capacity more quickly
11 than expected. He said the quality of the developments will be important.
12 Commissioner Dorosin asked if there is a timeline for the already approved residential
13 units.
14 Mayor Stevens said a large part happened 12 years ago with Waterstone, but the
15 economic crash of 2008 slowed things down. He said the Town is now catching up, but there is
16 still 5 to 10 years to go. He said traffic is an enormous concern, especially in the downtown
17 area. He said the Town wants to draw development toward the interstates.
18 The conversation moved onto aspects of Agenda Item number 2a: Collins Ridge and
19 Effect on School Facility Needs/Rail Station Area/Daniel Boone Village, including the following
20 information:
21
22 Background
23 Collins Ridge is a 1000+ unit residential use project in Hillsborough's extraterritorial jurisdiction
24 (ETJ). Orange County commented on the project impact on traffic on Churton Street and the
25 County realized impacts on human services, especially schools. The development project
26 proposes to make town traffic consultant transportation improvements in the Churton Street
27 corridor to ameliorate project traffic. Joint staffs have had discussions with the North Carolina
28 Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to explore the ability to use developer traffic
29 improvement funds to accelerate the comprehensive Churton Street widening plans in the state
30 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). From a school capacity perspective, the developer has
31 not yet gauged the impact of the preliminary `run' of SAPFO Certificate of Adequate Public
32 Schools (CAPS).
33
34 Although capacity may appear to be available at various schools levels (i.e. elementary, middle,
35 high)which is the CAPS testing scenario, the specific school elementary zone that serves this
36 area is presently over capacity. A large concentrated project and other residential approved
37 projects in the area can cause more drastic changes in the capacity projection models which
38 can accelerate new school Capital Investment Plan (CIP) needs.
39
40 Commissioner Rich asked if there has been a discussion with the Orange County
41 Schools (OCS) regarding capacity issues, and the possibility of redistricting. She said the
42 Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) is trying to open up conversations with the schools
43 and to keep them abreast of developments.
44 Commissioner Rich referred to the idea of widening Churton Street to accommodate
45 traffic, and asked if there are any alternate solutions to this congestion issue.
46 Margaret Hauth said the School Board is able to discuss redistricting at any time and is
47 aware of the Town's approved developments.
48 Margaret Hauth said the Orange County staff is involved in the Town's planning and
49 inspections process, and there is ongoing communication.
1 Margaret Hauth said the Town has been seeking another north-south traffic alternative
2 to Churton Street for years but has yet to reach a consensus on a route.
3 Commissioner Jacobs asked Bonnie Hammersley if she has had any communication
4 with the school system about capacity issues.
5 Bonnie Hammersley said staff is in the process of the Capital Investment Plan (CIP) and
6 have had conversations with both school systems. She said OCS does have concerns about
7 upcoming development and capacity, especially within the five year capacity of the CIP, and
8 that the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) does not project out for
9 development.
10 Commissioner Jacobs suggested that the managers, superintendents, and planning
11 staff meet to discuss if there is a need for a school in the proposed Collins Ridge development.
12 Commissioner Jacobs said years ago the issue of redistricting came up with OCS and it
13 may need to be re-visited.
14 Commissioner Burroughs said these comments should be shared at the next joint
15 school boards meeting. She said SAPFO has worked in Chapel Hill in some developments,
16 and she would be opposed to building a new school if there is available capacity in other
17 schools.
18 Commissioner Weaver asked if OCS have capacity concerns about the Collins
19 development solely, or concerns in general.
20 Bonnie Hammersley said her conversation with the OCS Superintendent indicated that
21 the concern stems from the Collins Ridge development.
22 Chair McKee respectfully reminded the Town Board that, unless these homes are very
23 expensive, residential development is not a win for Orange County. He said commercial
24 development is positive. He said Collins Ridge is a concern for him, as there is not currently
25 sufficient commercial development to offset the residential development. He said there must be
26 emphasis placed on commercial development within projects moving forward.
27 Mayor Stevens said the Town is trying to balance residential and commercial
28 development, and is looking at development comprehensively.
29 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the October 15, 2015 Hillsborough Planning Board
30 Agenda, which stated Collins Ridge is proposing 46 affordable housing units out of 1150. He
31 asked if this number is still accurate.
32 Margaret Hauth said there will be 950 units, with 88 being affordable rental units on
33 three acres of land, which will be given to CASA.
34 Commissioner Jacobs said this is less than 10%, and noted Chapel Hill's is 15%. He
35 asked if the developers have offered to enlarge the community center.
36 Margaret Hauth said the community center is available only to the residents, but the
37 developers have offered two acres of land for a public park space.
38 Commissioner Jacobs said Waterstone Drive could be labeled as an east west
39 bypass/connection. He said as commercial properties are developed on this road, he hopes
40 that an access road behind the businesses would be considered.
41 Commissioner Rich said she is concerned about water capacity and asked if there is
42 enough water for the new developments. She also asked if there is a plan to deal with the
43 existing older infrastructure.
44 Mayor Stevens said water is a conundrum and capacity is being monitored. He said
45 there is an aggressive replacement schedule for the Town's infrastructure.
46 Eric Peterson said the Town has been doing a water capacity analysis for almost two
47 decades, which is basically a water budget that is updated every few years, or when a new
48 development is approved. He said the Town knows this is an important issue.
49
1 b) 1-40/Old 86 Economic Development District Area Plans and Timing of Possible
2 Utilities Expansion
3 COUNTY Staff: Craig Benedict; TOWN Staff: Margaret Hauth
4 Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning and Engineering Director, reviewed the
5 following information:
6
7 The Town's Future Land Use Plan envisions the undeveloped property near the interchange to
8 be developed with public utilities and predominately non-residential (see Attachment 1-b —
9 Hillsborough Future Land Use Plan Map).
10
11 Orange County (OC) has included in its current year Capital Investment Plan (CIP) water and
12 sewer utility improvements in the northwest and southwest quadrant of Old NC 86 and 1-40.
13 This area includes over 200 acres and is designated suburban office and mixed use on the
14 OC/Town of Hillsborough (TOH)joint land use plan and economic development land use on the
15 County plan. This area is not within TOH Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). Since Article 46
16 economic development monies are being used, future projects should be non-residential and
17 tax-base/job building. OC and TOH engineering staff have discussed conceptual alignments
18 and capacity needs.
19
20 As a prerequisite to this project, OC and TOH would enter into a utility service agreement that
21 sets forth the conditions and responsibilities of the jurisdictions. OC has similar agreements
22 with Mebane and Durham.
23
24 The project scope will be to bring a 12" gravity sewer under the interstate from the northwest to
25 southwest quadrant with a `trunk' line that could provide service to the majority of the southern
26 interchange area. Joint party review design would start this spring with construction possibly
27 later in the year depending on interstate crossing permits and easement acquisition.
28 Management and planning/engineering staff will work together to craft an agreement and
29 process through the boards.
30
31 Margaret Hauth said the map is a snapshot of the Town's land use map and is
32 consistent with the interlocal agreements with the County.
33 Commissioner Pelissier referred to the far southeast quadrant, noting it is currently
34 designated residential development, and asked if Hillsborough would pay for the extension of
35 water to this area, as the County cannot use Article 46 funds for extension of residential water
36 lines.
37 Margaret Hauth said the designation of this area is up for discussion, but noted it does
38 have limited access.
39 Craig Benedict said the land use plan will be reviewed, and amended as necessary, to
40 make sure that it is meeting the most viable target for this intersection.
41 Eric Peterson said the developer would be responsible for bringing water and sewer to a
42 new development in the area mentioned by Commissioner Pelissier. He said there is a Town of
43 Hillsborough water main running down Old 86.
44
45 c) Downtown Redevelopment (Future Uses of Town and County Property, including
46 County Jail and Colonial Inn)
47 COUNTY Staff: Jeff Thompson; TOWN Staff: Margaret Hauth
48 Margaret Hauth opened the floor for questions.
49 Commissioner Dorosin asked if there is an update on the Colonial Inn.
1 Margaret Hauth said the Town told the owners it is interested in purchasing the site,
2 either through a negotiated sale or eminent domain. She said the paper work to start this
3 process has not yet been filed, but appraisers are under contract to appraise the property in the
4 middle of March.
5 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the owners expressed interest in a negotiated sale.
6 Margaret Hauth said the owners have not ruled out this option.
7 Mayor Stevens said the Boar is committed to acquiring the property, and there is a
8 cordial relationship with the owners. He said the downtown area will have multiple properties
9 available to commercial development, as the Town Annex is built over the next few years.
10 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the County and the Town can start planning together on
11 the options for various sites. He suggested the idea of making the Heritage Collection, in the
12 Orange County Library, into a museum, and maybe this could be located in the future Colonial
13 Inn.
14 Chair McKee asked if Jeff Thompson could give an update on the jail project.
15 Jeff Thompson said the Town is recruiting a design team to assess the redevelopment
16 and development of a government campus on town-owned properties on East Corbin
17 Street. He said Town staff expects it may be five years before town-owned properties in
18 downtown may be made available for private development. He said the Town will be in
19 partnership with the Orange Rural Fire Board on the two town-owned properties that
20 encompass the fire station. He said the Town's express intent in purchasing the Corbin
21 properties was to return the downtown properties to tax producing properties.
22 Commissioner Price asked if there is a way for the County and the Town to be more
23 collaborative with planning projects. She said a courtesy review of items is not really joint
24 planning.
25 Chair McKee said the old jail property is going to a major component for joint planning
26 and can be an asset or a sore spot.
27 Commissioner Price said a plan and timeline should be created for these facilities
28 instead of just a courtesy review. She said the old jail is in the heart of the Town, and there
29 should be a joint working group for this property.
30 Chair McKee said he is open to this idea.
31 Mayor Stevens said the Town is trying to envision the future of downtown and seeks to
32 involve all stakeholders.
33 Commissioner Ferguson said she agreed with Commissioner Price.
34
35 d) Mountains to Sea Trail/Riverwalk
36 COUNTY Staff: David Stancil; Staff TOWN: Margaret Hauth
37 Mayor Stevens said this is a follow up to last year's discussion.
38 David Stancil, Department of Agriculture, Environment, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR)
39 Director, summarized the information below:
40
41 The N.C. Mountains-to-Sea Trail (MST) is a part of the North Carolina State Parks system,
42 connecting Clingman's Dome on the North Carolina/Tennessee border to Jockey's Ridge State
43 Park on the Outer Banks. While some sections are already built, many (including the eastern
44 Piedmont section that includes Orange County) have sections remaining to be located and
45 created.
46
47 In summer/fall 2015, the NC Division of State Parks approved an MST Statewide Master Plan,
48 denoting the corridor of the primary route for the trail. The MST within Orange County (please
49 see maps at Attachment 1-d) would run from the Alamance-Orange County line in the
50 southwestern corner of the county, northeast along the northern side of Cane Creek Reservoir,
1 up and over the Cape Fear/Neuse river basin ridge line, to the County's Seven Mile Creek
2 Nature Preserve and on to Occoneechee Mountain State Natural Area, where it would connect
3 with the Town of Hillsborough's Riverwalk. The Town's Riverwalk was envisioned to be part of
4 the MST, and it will be dedicated as part of the trail in 2016. After exiting Riverwalk to the east,
5 the MST continues onto trails located on the Classical American Homes Trust and other lands,
6 before heading east into Eno River State Park.
7
8 e) Tourism
9 COUNTY Staff: Laurie Paolicelli
10 Laurie Paolicelli, Orange County Community Relations Director, said the Riverwalk was
11 envisioned 10 years ago, and it has transformed the community in that time.
12 Laurie Paolicelli said the mainstay of Hillsborough is its people, and there is a sense of
13 place here in Town. She said the greatest demand, from a tourism standpoint, is for hotels,
14 and that right developer and location is being sought. She said the second demand is for a
15 performing arts center for this area. She handed out a photo book of the Town to each official
16 prior to the meeting.
17 Laurie Paolicelli said the other hot topic is agri-tourism and pick-your-own farms. She
18 said Orange County is the pilot county for a Department of Agricutlure agri-tourism app, which
19 will premiere in June.
20 Laurie Paolicelli said her role is expanding to community relations, and Orange County
21 is reviewing its online communication; specifically communication with the northern part of the
22 County where Internet access is sporadic.
23 Laurie Paolicelli explained the photojournalistic Vitamin 0 project.
24 Commissioner Dorosin referred to the desired arts performance space, and asked if the
25 Whitted Center can be used in such a capacity.
26 Mayor Stevens said several cultural and art events have occurred in the Whitted Center
27 over the past year.
28 Shannon Campbell said the arts community is looking for a more multi-purpose area
29 that is specifically dedicated to the arts. She said Hillsborough has seen a lot of media
30 attention lately regarding tourism, with specific attention on food and beverage sites. She said
31 the Town is highlighting recreational and shopping opportunities to encourage people to view
32 Hillsborough as a place that offers all types of attractions.
33
34 2. Planning/Development
35 a) Collins Ridge and Effect on School Facility Needs /Rail Station Area/Daniel Boone
36 Village; Other)
37 COUNTY Staff: Craig Benedict; TOWN Staff: Margaret Hauth
38 Craig Benedict said there is a conversation with the State regarding the widening of
39 Churton Street.
40 Chair McKee said the Collins Ridge property, and its effect on school facility needs, was
41 discussed earlier in the meeting.
42 Margaret Hauth said the train station is a fully funded project through the Town
43 Improvement Plan (TIP). She said the Town has secured the services of Summit Design and
44 Engineering, as well as Surface 678, to work on a conceptual layout of the 20 acres, to identify
45 the footprint that will be subject to review. She said the conceptual process should be wrapped
46 up in the spring or at the start of the fiscal year. She said all partners are working together
47 effectively, and this is an exciting project.
48
49 b) US 70 Corridor Update on Redevelopment
50 COUNTY Staff: Craig Benedict; TOWN Staff: Margaret Hauth
1 Margaret Hauth reviewed the following information:
2 The ownership of the North Hills Shopping Center has changed, but no plans for redevelopment
3 have been submitted. The proposed restaurant complex next to Walgreens has an approved
4 Master plan, but no further applications or actions are pending at this time. While the town
5 board continues to support the recommendations in the 70 Corridor Plan, no specific actions
6 are in the works.
7 Margaret Hauth said the Town is committed to making this area more pedestrian
8 friendly.
9 Commissioner Ferguson said Dollar General was planning on moving out last summer,
10 but they have a three-year commitment, and, as of now, are planning to stay at the North Hills
11 Shopping Center.
12 Commissioner Lowen said the Town and the County should work together to pursue the
13 possibility of getting a grocery store in this corridor area on the north side of town.
14 Commissioner Ferguson said neighbors in this area want sit-down restaurants, beauty
15 supply stores, as well as medical services and stores that can employ local residents.
16 Commissioner Weaver referred to the worker owned/co-op model and suggested this
17 may be an option for this area. She said there is a non-profit in Durham that specializes in this
18 type of work.
19 Commissioner Price said Fairview is also growing and services must be provided in
20 order to preserve those neighborhoods.
21
22 c) Update on Former Truck Stop at Highway 86 and Interstate 85
23 COUNTY Staff: Craig Benedict
24 Craig Benedict reviewed the following information:
25 There is presently an approved site plan for redevelopment of the former truck stop. Master
26 site improvements are underway by the property owner of the large parcel such as building
27 deconstruction/demolition and erosion control/stormwater designs. A Sheetz gas
28 station/restaurant facility is planned.
29 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the property owner is going to incorporate the joint
30 intersection improvements.
31 Craig Benedict said yes, the owner has preserved an 80-ft corridor between the two
32 uses, and it will be stubbed out to another project that will come forward.
33 Craig Benedict said the site development is presently limited to the prior traffic counts of
34 the prior use, since the nearby bridge has reached its capacity limitations.
35 Chair McKee asked if there is a scheduled upgrade from the Department of
36 Transportation (DOT)for the 1-85 widening
37 Craig Benedict said yes, but it must be closely monitored, as the State changes the
38 prioritization of different projects.
39 Commissioner Lowen asked if a developer would help pay for the off-site improvements.
40 Craig Benedict said yes, but how much a developer contributes depends on how close
41 to capacity the area is.
42 Commissioner Lowen asked if any properties in this area would be affected by the 1-85
43 expansion.
44 Craig Benedict said there is not a formal design for the Highway 86/1-85 intersection, but
45 access would be affected.
46
47 3. Transportation/Transit
48 a) Hillsborough Bus Circulator Routes Update
49 COUNTY Staff: — Craig Benedict
50 Peter Murphy, Transportation Administrator, gave an overview of the bus routes:
1 The Hillsborough Circulator Route began in June 2011 and provides free fixed route bus
2 service to several residential areas and key non-residential destinations, such as the Orange
3 County Courthouse, Social Services Center, Orange County Campus at Durham Tech, and
4 UNC Hospital-Hillsborough Campus, among others. Hourly service is provided Monday- Friday,
5 8:00am - 5:00pm. Operation was funded for the first three years through a Congestion
6 Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program Grant and is now fully funded from public-transit
7 "Mobility Bill" dedicated vehicle registration fees. The Route has been modified slightly from the
8 original route, most recently last November, as a result of the park and ride lease ending at the
9 North Hills Shopping Center (former Maxway site). Park and Ride users have been redirected to
10 the Orange County Campus at Durham Tech and the Orange-Durham Express (Route ODX),
11 Orange-Chapel Hill Connector, and Route 420 were also revised to reflect the change.
12 Ridership on the Circulator has been good, averaging approximately 1,200 riders per month.
13 In addition, a new route that complements the GoTriangle 420 Route (Peak hour service and
14 approximately 550 riders per month) is the Orange Public Transportation Orange-Chapel Hill
15 Mid-Day Connector (approximately 300 riders per month). Upon request, staff can provide an
16 update on additional future bus services to be implemented in the Hillsborough area at the
17 meeting.
18 Commissioner Pelissier suggested rider surveys be done yearly.
19 Chair McKee asked if, given the growth of ridership, there is a timeframe for the need
20 for extra buses to reduce wait times going forward.
21 Peter Murphy said with future expansions plans, there would be more buses on the road
22 if funding is available.
23
24 b) Park and Ride Lot for 420 and ODX Routes
25 COUNTY Staff: Tom Altieri; Town Staff: Margaret Hauth
26 Tom Altieri, Orange County Planning, said the Town Board received an update from Go
27 Triangle staff regarding options to locate a transfer facility and park and ride for the new Route
28 ODX at its meeting earlier this month.
29 Margaret Hauth said the Town Board was generally supportive of the option proposed
30 by Go Triangle to locate a transfer facility along Cornelius Street/US 70 Bypass (possibly at
31 Faucette Mill Rd.) to facilitate access to the most routes, as well as residents within walking
32 distance, and a park and ride facility further to the east on US 70 Bypass at New Hope Church.
33 The Town will have to make adjustments to its development code, which its staff is presently
34 studying, to consider a park and ride lot at the church because it is residentially zoned. The
35 Town appreciates Go Triangle's willingness to have the two facilities in the corridor so that
36 access to the route is maximized for transit dependent populations in Hillsborough.
37 Tom Altieri said at their places is the PowerPoint that Go Triangle was going to present.
38 He said this item will be on the BOCC agenda at the March 1st meeting.
39 Commissioner Ferguson said she hopes that the County will support what the Town
40 supports. She said adjoining neighbors do not want this park and ride lot in a prime commercial
41 area.
42 Commissioner Dorosin asked if there are advantages or disadvantages to having them
43 separate or together.
44 Margaret Hauth said it is ideal to co-locate, as it is most efficient. She said Go
45 Triangle's is of the perspective that they are serving commuters, and thus the transfer facility
46 being located at New Hope Church is acceptable. She said the Town's perspective that this is
47 a commuter service, but it also important to access the transit dependent population by placing
48 a transfer location in the community.
49 Commissioner Pelissier asked if neighbors want the option supported by the Town.
1 Commissioner Ferguson said access to transportation was voiced as being highly
2 important during neighborhood information meetings.
3 Commissioner Pelissier said she is glad that the Go Triangle presentation was
4 postponed, since it was good to hear the Town's reasons for supporting the version of the park
5 and ride lot that it did.
6 Commissioner Bell asked if there is a proposed timeline to have all the options laid out
7 and a decision made.
8 Margaret Hauth said it would depend on the option that is chosen. She said Go Triangle
9 is determining the specific timeline. She said Go Triangle is anxious to get started.
10 Margaret Hauth said most of this funding is already available through the bus and rail
11 investment plan.
12 Commissioner Lowen said the New Hope Church parking lot is already paved and would
13 need fewer improvements.
14 Chair McKee agreed with the Town's comments and their support of the New Hope
15 Church location. He says his main concern is convenience for the residents, not convenience
16 for Go Triangle.
17 Commissioner Rich asked if Mayor Stevens could please provide the Town Board's
18 minutes from these types of discussions to the BOCC for future issues.
19 Margaret Hauth said these presentations were lined up for both boards to discuss
20 individually and collectively.
21 Commissioner Price suggested providing an update to the community in the form of a
22 flyer in both English and Spanish.
23 Bonnie Hammersley said this can be done.
24
25 c) Churton Street Improvements
26 TOWN Staff: Margaret Hauth
27 Margaret Hauth said notification from DOT was received, permitting construction to
28 proceed. She reviewed the following information:
29
30 The current schedule would allow the bus stop work near the Justice Facility to begin in May
31 2016 as the first portion of the construction work. The downtown construction phase would last
32 about 10 months, wrapping up in January 2017. In Spring 2017, NCDOT has scheduled the
33 resurfacing of Churton Street. Once that is complete, the stamped crosswalks and final clean-
34 up can take place. The best estimate right now for full completion is the end of calendar year
35 2017. The town will have a meeting with downtown businesses as soon as a contractor has
36 been secured so that full details of timing can be discussed and adjusted to the extent feasible.
37 Town staff acknowledges that the construction schedule is not the desired schedule for local
38 businesses, but construction of this type cannot take place in January-March.
39 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is a status update regarding limiting the traffic from
40 the parking lot across from Hillsborough BBQ.
41 Margaret Hauth said that issue is sitting with the DOT now, awaiting approval, but there
42 are plans to do major renovations to this area.
43 Commissioner Jacobs said the traffic light at the corner of Nash and West King is seven
44 seconds long, which is simply not enough time.
45 Margaret Hauth said she would pass the concern along to the DOT.
46
47 4. Information Items (Written Updates - Not for Specific Discussion)
48 a) Solid Waste/ Recycling (COUNTY—Gayle Wilson)
49 b) Bond Referendum (COUNTY—Gary Donaldson)
50
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs
2 to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 p.m.
3
4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5
6 Earl McKee, Chair
7
8
9 Donna Baker,
10 Clerk to the Board
11
12