Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05-15-20181 APPROVED 6/5/2018 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING May 15, 2018 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 7 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Mia Burroughs, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Mark Marcoplos, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chair Dorosin COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) Vice Chair Rich called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m., and said she will preside over the meeting tonight as Chair Dorosin is unable to attend, due to an out of town work conflict. 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda NOTE: For this meeting only, the Manager is proposing that the Board address Section 8 – Consent Agenda and Section 11 – Appointments prior to discussion of Section 5 – Public Hearings due to Section 5’s expected length of discussion. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to approve for the Board to address Section 8 – Consent Agenda and Section 11 – Appointments prior to discussion of Section 5 – Public Hearings due to Section 5’s expected length of discussion. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Rich noted the following items at the Commissioners’ places: - Yellow sheet: revised abstract for Item 11b PUBLIC CHARGE Commissioner Rich reviewed the public charge. Katie Murray, Arts Commission Director, introduced the Arts Moment. Arts Moment - Celisa Steele – Ms. Steele lives in Carrboro, North Carolina, where she served as the town’s poet laureate from 2013 to 2016. As a member of Carrboro Poets Council, she's helped plan for the past six years Carrboro's free, multi-day, multi-venue West End Poetry Festival, which takes place each October. Her poetry has appeared in Poetry South, Tar River Poetry, The Comstock Review, San Pedro River Review, and other publications. In 2011, she published her first chapbook, How Language Is Lost. Read more about her poetry at www.celisasteele.com. 2 Ms. Steele read a poem. Commissioner McKee arrived at 7:05 p.m. 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda Jim Merritt, Co-Chair of the Veteran’s Memorial Committee, invited everyone to the 1st annual Veteran’s Memorial Bike Rally on May 28th, as well as the commemoration service at 7:45 a.m. on May 28th at Southern Human Services Center. He said this service will include a dedication and placement of a memorial wreath, and then the bikes will take a tour of Orange County. He said there are still a lot of memorial bricks for sale to commemorate friends’ and family’s service to the country. Commissioner Price said anyone who is interested in riding in the motorcycle tour should contact Officer Whitehurst. Commissioner Rich asked if there is an update on fundraising for the memorial. Jim Merritt said about $50,000 has been raised. Terri Buckner and Allan Green read the following statement: On December 4, 2017, we, the local friends of the MST, petitioned the board to adopt an official trail map for the southern section of the trail. On January 23, 2018, you agreed to our request and adopted a “concept” map while also expressing your support for moving the trail forward at a faster pace. On March 2, a small group of us met with DEAPR staff to map out the Cane Creek area of the trail route in more detail and identify for DEAPR staff the most feasible location for trail easements. We also identified 2 tracts of land that were for sale at the time, one of which would have made an ideal trail head. That "ideal trailhead" now has an offer on it, not from Orange County. To the best of our knowledge no action has occurred to move the planning on that section of the trail forward since the March 2 meeting. We were told in that meeting that we could expect to see trail in the Cane Creek area within 3-4 years. We are not sure if that time line is simply to establish the trail map or to actually open the trail to hikers. Our expert trail builder estimates it will take well over a year to build the ~8 miles trail from Ed Johnson’s property on Buckhorn Rd across to Mebane Oaks. We feel like construction on that section could have begun this fall if staff had started formalizing the freely-offered easements after the January 23 map adoption. On January 25, I attended an NCDOT meeting on the Hwy 54 corridor, made them aware of the intent to link the Alamance County section of the MST with the Orange County section near the intersection of Saxapahaw-Bethlehem Church Road and Hwy 54. I discussed with them the possibility of including a trailhead, like the one at the Haw River on 15-501, around that intersection. They expressed willingness to discuss this with Orange County, and I passed that contact information along to DEAPR staff. On May 2, I attended a follow up meeting with DOT and saw the trailhead was not drawn into their revised map. I was told they have contacted Orange County but haven’t received a response. As part of our attempts to partner with DEAPR to make the MST a reality, the Friends agreed to provide the volunteer labor for a February trail building session at Seven Mile Creek. We expended considerable effort to recruit skilled volunteers for that session in order to establish a 3 positive working relationship. A couple of days before the session, we were notified that due to an administrative glitch, the materials would not be available to undertake the planned work and the work session was cancelled. That was the last communication we've had with DEAPR. According to your 2018 Capital Investment Plan, “"The second phase of the [MST] project is proposed for Year 2 and would address the segment of the MST from Buckhorn Road around and on the OWASA-owned lands at Cane Creek Reservoir, continuing to the Alamance County line." However, we did not find any specific action items laid out for meeting this goal. We did, however, find the following in the Parks and Recreation Council plan of action for 2018, • "Continue to participate in the Mountains to the Sea project as way station and trailhead locations are identified in the coming at Seven Mile Creek and potentially other locations." (p. 47-48 of May 3 BOCC agenda). • In that same document we also found reference to the need for assessing the proposed multimodal trail. There are at least two significant reasons not to continue delaying action on the Cane Creek section of the trail. First, land is turning over in that area and more and more smaller tracts are being sold. The more residents who move in out there, the harder it is going to be to get the trail sited and built. Second, as we have said before, some of those who are willing to give free easements are older and not only do they want to be assured that the easements are codified but they also want to be able to hike the trail while they are still able. We completely understand that DEAPR is a small department with a significant work load. That's why we have made so many efforts to help move the MST project forward. We don't want to wait another 3-4 years. If the county is going to move forward with this project beyond the Hillsborough area, it's time to do it, instead of dragging it out while undertaking new competing projects. What we want: Year 2 begins in July and we would like to have a concrete plan of action that includes: • A commitment to work with NC DOT to establish a trail head at Hwy 54 and Saxapahaw- Bethlehem Church Rd. We’d like this commitment made tonight. • A commitment to finalize the freely-offered easements in the Cane Creek area by the end of August. • Establishment of a joint oversight committee between the Friends of the MST, county staff, the BOCC and OWASA before your summer break. The goal of this committee would be to develop an action plan for the Cane Creek section of the trail, followed by a similar plan for Cane Creek to Hillsborough, and then to help guide the plan through to implementation. Commissioner Rich said she would take this as a petition. Bonnie Hammersley said staff will bring back a status report for the Board before the break. b. Matters on the Printed Agenda (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda below.) 4 3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members Commissioner McKee had no comments. Commissioner Price said the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization met last week, and released the list of projects for the allocation of local input points, therefore opening the public comment period. Commissioner Price said the Board received a template from the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners (NCACC) for the North Carolina School Bond for school facilities, and she is petitioning the BOCC to support the bond, and to encourage both local Chambers of Commerce to do the same. Commissioner Price said the Central Orange High School reunion is coming up, and it marks 50 years since the end of segregation in the Orange County School System. She said there will be a host of activities planned. Commissioner Price said she supported getting an action plan for the MST. Commissioner Jacobs agreed with Commissioner Price about the MST. Commissioner Jacobs said he wanted to express his condolences to the family of Elsie Pickett, who was a great community activist. Commissioner Jacobs congratulated all of the teachers who were going to Raleigh tomorrow to fight for themselves and quality public education, in a State that seems to want to dismantle quality public education. Commissioner Jacobs said the first meeting of the Orange Chatham Work Group occurred, and it was a very collegial meeting, which was full of good information. He said the next meeting will occur in October. Commissioner Marcoplos said he is excited about the day of advocacy for teachers and public education. He said one part of the movement stuck with him, which is the depth of children’s hunger issues in the County, and learning how many children would go without food due to missing a day of school. He said he was unaware of the magnitude of this problem, and he is unsure how to help, but feels that Board should concentrate on this issue in the near future. Commissioner Burroughs had no comments. Commissioner Rich referred to Commissioner Marcoplos’ request to help hungry children, and said it may be something that the Food Council can look into. She congratulated teachers for their bold move in holding tomorrow’s march. Commissioner Rich referred to the meeting with Chatham County, and said she also learned a great deal. She said Chatham County is feeling growing pains with its public transportation, especially in the direction of Chapel Hill. She said Chatham Transit is a non- profit, to which Chatham County provides financial support, and it is trying to get passengers to UNC, in order to connect with Orange Public Transit (OPT) and Chapel Hill Transit. She petitioned the Board and staff to think proactively about these connections. 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations NONE 8. Consent Agenda (MOVED UP) • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda Items 8-b, 8-c by Commissioner Price Item 8-d by Commissioner McKee 5 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner McKee to approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda. VOTE: UNANIMOUS • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda 8-b: Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget Amendment #9 The Board considered approving budget, capital, and grant project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2017-18. Commissioner Price congratulated the Piedmont Food and Agricultural Processing (PFAP) Center for getting the Golden Leaf grant, and said it is important to let people know what is going on with PFAP. Commissioner Jacobs said PFAP is fully subscribed, and essentially built out. He said it is doing very well, and showing a small profit. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to approve the budget, capital, and grant project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2017-18. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 8-c: Family Success Alliance – Agreements for Navigator Program The Board considered approving two agreements totaling $452,325 (OCIM - $213,601 and Empowerment, Inc. - $238,724) to implement the Family Success Alliance Zone Navigator Program in zones 4 and 6, respectively, and authorize the Manager to sign. Commissioner Price asked for clarification on the number of people that are going to be employed in this program. Quintana Stewart, Health Director, said no new staff will be added, but rather increasing hours for current staff to get them closer to full time. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to approve two agreements totaling $452,325 (OCIM - $213,601 and Empowerment, Inc. - $238,724) to implement the Family Success Alliance Zone Navigator Program in zones 4 and 6, respectively, and authorize the Manager to sign. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 8-d: Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Amendment Outline and Schedule –UDO Text Amendments Clarifying Impervious Surface Regulations The Board considered approving process components and schedule for proposed amendments to the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Commissioner McKee said this item is an update on impervious surface regulations for subdivisions platted before 1994, and it is a clarification on the transfer between parcels for 6 impervious surface. He said this is a step forward in addressing some overly onerous regulations on some subdivision lots. He pulled this item to petition the Board to direct staff to bring back an abstract item in the fall that will take a more comprehensive look at impervious surface standards and percentages, as applied to small lots in Orange County. Commissioner Jacobs asked Michael Harvey, Current Planning, if the Board is to assume that the statement about the ability to transfer impervious surface from one adjacent parcel to another is the sum total of the regulation, or if there will be more detail in the future. Michael Harvey said staff is in the process of writing the ordinance, and it is staff’s position that this ordinance seeks to do two things: 1.) Clarify processes for subdivisions that were platted and developed prior to the County adopting countywide watershed management strategies and policies; and 2.) There is an existing allowance that permits the transfer of impervious surface from parcels that are adjacent to one another, which staff believes to be unnecessarily limiting, and transfer should be allowed between parcels in the same watershed. He said staff will be proposing caps on how much impervious surface can be transferred, because staff does not want to make property undevelopable, because it has transferred too much impervious surface to another parcel; and to avoid a parcel having more impervious surface than it can handle from a storm water management standpoint. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to approve the process components and schedule for proposed amendments to the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). VOTE: UNANIMOUS 8-e: Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance – Approval and Certification of 2018 Report The Board considered approving and certifying the 2018 Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) Report and certifying portions of the Report. Commissioner Rich said it looks like no one pulled this item, and she mistakenly pulled it out. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to approve and certify the 2018 Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) Report and certify portions of the Report. VOTE: UNANIMOUS a. Minutes The Board approved the minutes from April 24, 26 and May 1, 2018 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. b. Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget Amendment #9 The Board approved budget, capital, and grant project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2017-18 for Department on Aging; Animal Services; Health Department; White Cross Volunteer Fire Department; Piedmont Food and Agricultural Processing (PFAP) Center; Library Services; and the Department of Environment, Agriculture, and Parks and Recreation (DEAPR). c. Family Success Alliance – Agreements for Navigator Program 7 The Board approved two agreements totaling $452,325 (OCIM - $213,601 and Empowerment, Inc. - $238,724) to implement the Family Success Alliance Zone Navigator Program in zones 4 and 6, respectively, and authorize the Manager to sign. d. Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Amendment Outline and Schedule –UDO Text Amendments Clarifying Impervious Surface Regulations The Board approved process components and schedule for proposed amendments to the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). e. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance – Approval and Certification of 2018 Report The Board approved and certified the 2018 Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) Report and certified portions of the Report. f. Change in BOCC Regular Meeting Schedule for 2018 The Board changed the Board of Commissioners’ regular meeting calendar for 2018 to add a Transit Oriented Development Meeting, Thursday, June 21, 2018 from 7:00pm-9:00pm in the Durham County Government Administrative Complex, 2nd floor, Commissioners' Chambers, 200 East Main Street, Durham, NC 27701. 11. *Appointments- MOVED UP a. Advisory Board on Aging – Appointments The Board considered making appointments to the Advisory Board on Aging. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Marcoplos to appoint the following to the Advisory Board on Aging: • Appointment to a first full term (Position #3) “Chapel Hill Town Limits” representative for Michael Zuber expiring 06/30/2021. • Appointment to a first full term (Position #8) “At-Large” representative for Alicia Nelson expiring 06/30/2021. • Appointment to a first full term (Position #9) “At-Large” representative for James Harris expiring 06/30/2021. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Board of Health – Appointments The Board considered making appointments to the Board of Health. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee to appoint the following to the Board of Health: Appointment to a first full term (Position #5) “Optometrist” representative for Dr. Bruce Baldwin expiring 06/30/2021. • Appointment to a second full term (Position #6) “Citizen/Commissioner Appointment” representative for Barbara Chavious expiring 06/30/2021. • Appointment to a second full term (Position #7) “At-Large Professional Engineer” representative for Timothy Smith expiring 06/30/2021. • Appointment to a first full term (Position #8) “At-Large” representative for Keith Bagby expiring 06/30/2021. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 8 5. Public Hearings a. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment – Flags and Flagpoles The Board held a public hearing on a Planning Director/County Attorney’s Office initiated Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) text amendment clarifying regulations associated with flags and flagpoles. The Board considered a decision on one of the following options: a. Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 3) and EITHER the Ordinance and Proposed UDO Text Amendments in Attachment 4, or the Ordinance in Attachment 4 and the County’s Attorney’s May 10, 2018 Proposed UDO Text Amendments in Attachment 7; b. Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date; or c. Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose. Michael Harvey reviewed items in the agenda abstract, and the information below: BACKGROUND: The UDO Amendment Outline Form (Attachment 1) for these amendments was approved by the BOCC at its March 20, 2018 regular meeting. The County Attorney’s Office has provided staff with recommended language. The purpose of these proposed amendments is as follows: • To address concerns over the lack of clear and comprehensive regulation(s) to ensure that the display of a flag does not dominate local skylines. • To clarify existing regulations on flags and flagpoles. Specifically: o The allowable height, location, and number of flagpoles, and o The maximum allowable area (size) of flags that can be displayed on a given parcel of property. Please note the proposed amendments do not attempt to regulate flag content. Regulating flag content would be inconsistent with numerous court proceedings, including the US Supreme Court Case Reed versus Town of Gilbert. The County cannot regulate the content of a flag. It can, however, establish content-neutral regulations designed to address the size, height, and location at which a flag is displayed. For additional background information, please refer to the UDO Amendment Outline Form contained within Attachment 1 and to the pertinent agenda materials and information via the following links: • March 20, 2018 BOCC regular meeting agenda materials can be viewed at: http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=51820&dbid=0. • March 20, 2018 BOCC regular meeting minutes can be viewed at: http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/WebLink8/0/doc/52122/Page1.aspx • April 4, 2018 Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) agenda materials and can be viewed at: http://cms3.revize.com/revize/orangecounty/ORCAgendaPacket.pdf. • April 4, 2018 Planning Board agenda materials can be viewed at: http://cms3.revize.com/revize/orangecounty/PlanningBoardAgendaPacket.pdf. 9 An amendment fact sheet (Attachment 6) has been prepared providing answers to basic question(s) associated with this proposal. If the amendment is adopted, Planning staff will be required to physically document all flags and flagpoles on property within the County’s planning jurisdiction. This is to establish a baseline for what is existing within the County and identify potential violation(s) of size and height regulation(s). Please note staff will not have the authority to go onto private property to document the presence of a flag or flagpole. Pictures will be taken from public/private rights-of-way. Further this is the first step in the documentation process. Staff will have the burden of proving a flagpole exceeds established height restrictions or a flag exceeds allowable area in order to initiate enforcement action at the appropriate time. Planning Director’s Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the proposed text amendments, including the: i. Statement of Consistency contained in Attachment 3, which indicates the proposed text amendments are consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan, are reasonable, and are in the public interest, and ii. The text amendment as contained in Attachment 4. Planning Board Recommendation: At its April 4, 2018 meeting, the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency and the UDO amendment package. Draft minutes and the signed Statement of Consistency from this meeting are included in Attachment 2. Pursuant to a request by the Chair, the County Attorney and Planning staff prepared an additional document, Attachment 7, with recommendations from the County Attorney to reduce the required setback to 20 feet and to designate a maximum allowable height rather than having an allowable height either a set number of feet or the height of a building on the lot. Reducing the setback would allow the County’s smallest allowable lots of 50 feet to erect flagpoles. Allowing for a single height limit for flagpoles in the residential and commercial zoning districts will provide a measure of uniformity for flagpole height throughout the County. Page 11- amortization policy- flagpoles would have to comply within one year of this ordinance being adopted. Michael Harvey said the Planning Board is aware that many entities have multiple flagpoles, such as fire departments and schools. He said the County Attorney’s (CA) office has provided some additional amendment options on page 30 of the packet. Commissioner McKee asked if the flagpoles will be out of the compliance after a year. Michael Harvey said yes. Commissioner McKee asked if the number of government entities with flagpoles over this height is known. Michael Harvey said no. Commissioner Price asked how staff determined that there could be only three flags per pole. Michael Harvey said given the timeframe placed on staff by the BOCC, this is what staff was able to come up with, and staff based this ordinance on similar regulatory standards from 10 Durham County. He said this is content neutral, and flags cannot be banned, but the number of flags, size and location can be regulated. He said staff would consider other options, if the Board so desires. Commissioner Price clarified that there is no specific reason to have just three flags. Michael Harvey said staff tried to address a reasonable number, and he said there are state laws that require people to be able to fly state, national and local jurisdiction flags, and this cannot be denied. John Roberts said state law requires that local governments allow the flying of those three flags, which was the way he determined 3 flags per pole. Commissioner Price said she understood that reasoning at public sites, but not on private property. Commissioner Jacobs referred to page 2, where it talks about severing the allowable height of the pole from the height of the building. Michael Harvey said that will be covered by the CA. Commissioner Jacobs said on page 28 it states that it is not going to be related to the existing structures, and asked if clarification could be provided. John Roberts said that is an option, and was a Commissioner requested change. He said this makes sense so that there is consistency countywide for height. Commissioner Jacobs asked if this consistency is for total height. John Roberts said for maximum flagpole height per type of lot. Commissioner Price asked if there is a reason that cemeteries are being regulated. Michael Harvey said staff allowed exemptions for both private and public cemeteries; and small flags on gravesites will be permitted. Commissioner Price read the following language: “flags no greater than 12 inches in height may be displayed at individual gravesites within the cemetery” and asked if this is applicable to all cemeteries. Michael Harvey said yes, there is no distinction between public and private cemeteries. John Roberts said this issue came up because of a rumor that an excessively large flag was going up on a residential lot, and the BOCC received a large number of complaints. He said many of those complaints focused on one type of flag. He said the BOCC, staff, and he looked at the ordinance, and it was not clear on the size or height of flags that may be flown, whether on commercial or residential property. He said the BOCC instructed staff to bring a content neutral ordinance regulating flags. John Roberts said both the staff’s proposal and his options are content neutral, and any flag can continue to be flown if it fits within the dimensions proposed in the ordinance. He said if the Board adopts this ordinance, there is a one-year amortization before anyone would have to replace their flags to adhere to the ordinance. John Roberts said there is clear case law that this is within a local government’s authority. He said Durham has a flag ordinance and regulates the size of the flags, and the case which determined that ordinance went all the way to the 4th circuit of appeals, which is the federal appellate court having jurisdiction over North Carolina. He said the Court ruled in Durham’s favor. John Roberts said it is not his interpretation that the flagpole will be subject to the amortization provision. He said if a flagpole is taken down voluntarily, or knocked down through an accident or natural act, then it would need to be replaced with a flagpole that complies, but residents, schools, churches, etc., will not be required to replace existing flagpoles otherwise. Commissioner Rich clarified that the size of flag itself has to be in compliance within a year, but the flagpole does not. 11 John Roberts said that is correct. He said the pole is subject to the ordinance immediately, but will not have to be removed and replaced unless it comes down by natural act or if it is taken down. Commissioner Rich asked if a compliant flag could be flown on an existing pole, and if the height restriction only applies if a flagpole comes down for some reason and needs replacing. John Roberts said yes, that is the way it is written now, but it is subject to the Board’s approval. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to open the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS PUBLIC COMMENT: Craig Carter thanked the Commissioners for serving on this board, and said his father knew Commissioner McKee. He said he is a great-grandson of a Confederate soldier, and has lost many relatives in past wars. He said the flag is not a racial issue, and the large flag that has been a source of complaints is really a finger to the Board about the siting of the forthcoming detention center. He said he understands both sides of the debate, and he does not care. He said the flag that is flying is not a confederate flag, but a battle flag of Virginia. He said the fire department in his district does not even fly a flag. He said rather than debating flag issues, he would like an ambulance out in the northern part of the County. He said this flag issue will go away, and there are more important things to be focusing on. He said there are a lot of historical houses in downtown Hillsborough, and there are no monuments to the slaves who built much of Orange County. He said it is a waste to be discussing issues like the size of flags. Alva Cravey said a town called Chapel Hill dominates the community, and the local product is a University of North Carolina (UNC) graduate. She said she has worked at UNC for 24 years, and UNC is a public constitution, which is struggling with its legacy of elitism. She said the school was built for the white sons of wealthy slave owners, and elitism is the reason that there is a monument to the Confederacy on a pedestal. She said the monument on campus has been a lightning rod for violence, and these mega size Confederate flags are part of the problem. She said the Confederate monument was put up in 1913, as a reminder of the Jim Crow order, and that all should remain in their place. She thanked the Board of County Commissioners for their leadership in considering this ordinance. She said the public roadways should be places that welcome all citizens, and this ordinance supports this. James Ward said he is against this proposed ordinance. He said although the proposed amendment is content neutral, he feels this is a transparent attempt to act against the 160 year old confederate battle flag. He said the issue of giant flags never would have arisen if not for actions and efforts in recent years to ban all things confederate in Orange County. He said signs have been removed from buildings, Confederate items are no longer allowed in the school systems, and there have been persistent attempts to remove the Confederate memorial statue at UNC. He said the charge that these items are threatening is baseless, and the anti- confederate movement has engendered a lot of resentment and anger within the community. He said a reaction was predictable. He said Orange County desires to be diverse and welcoming to all types, and he agrees with this sentiment. He said this attitude should be extended to all residents; even those who wish only to honor the legacy and memory of forefathers. He asked the BOCC to deny this proposed amendment. 12 Robert Randall said John Roberts said that Orange County cannot regulate the content of flags, because that content falls under the first amendment right to free speech. He said this whole issue would not be discussed if it were not for the Confederate flag on Highway 70. He says he has no affinity for the Confederate flag, and has no desire to fly one on his own property, but he feels this proposed amendment is limiting of free speech. He said the flag is offensive to some, but being offended should never trump constitutional rights. He asked the Board to table this issue, and said Orange County has gotten along fine without this ordinance. He said limiting free speech could cause many more flags to be flown around Orange County in protest. Heather Redding said landownership does not bestow unlimited rights. She said the 2nd amendment does not extend to children or those with criminal records, and one’s right to vote can be taken away. She said the right to free speech is not unlimited in scope. She said the current UDO already limits what can be done on one’s property in regards to signage, and has for years, without complaint or threats of lawsuits. She asked the Board of County Commissioners to approve the proposed amendment. Nan Fulcher said she is from Orange County, and she supports the text amendment. She said the regulation addresses the messages that are on display in the community. She said all messages affect us, regardless of where they are or what they say. She said Orange County has carefully regulated signage over the years, which has resulted in the area being less burdened by the blight of unrestricted, in your face signage that many communities have suffered. She said regulation is balanced by the needs of the economy, the government and the people. She said free speech is not an unconditional right, and this proposed amendment only limits flag size, not content or nature. L.A. Elvin said the dimensions of the property on which he lives will preclude him from flying his flag. He said he spent a few hundred dollars to erect his flagpole, and flies the National colors and the Marine Corps flag. He said he is confused after hearing this evening’s presentation, and does not know if he can continue to fly his flag or not. John Roberts said one of the recommendations is to reduce the setback from 50 feet to 20 feet for smaller lots. Commissioner Rich told Mr. Elvin that the County will work with him to solve this issue. Olivia Strong (Ms. Redding read a statement on behalf of Olivia Strong): The Confederate flag on 70 is affecting the community and families. It’s not right to see such large symbols. Large symbols affect the children. Ashley Campbell said she is a Hillsborough resident, and noted that there is an FAQ about this topic on the County website, as if the ordinance has already been approved. She said she agreed with some of the other comments that the progressive communities are trying to destroy the public commemoration of the Confederacy. She said it is clear to all that this ordinance was introduced to limit a particular flag because it is intimidating. She said the Confederate flag is intimidating, and has a terrible legacy behind it, but as a conservative that lives in Orange County, she was intimidated by the letter from Orange County that was sent out after President Trump was elected, implying that conservatives were not welcome in Orange County. She said she could have been intimidated at a Human Relations Commission (HRC) event last summer about the flag issue in the schools. She said the HRC meeting that took place a couple of weeks ago was not well promoted, and it became a progressive activists rally. She reminded the BOCC that its job as elected officials is to protect everyone’s rights. Dylan Mole said he is a UNC student, and supports the proposed text amendment. He said the rebel flags are dangerous distractions to drivers, and massive symbols of white supremacy that have no place in an inclusive community. He said the most prominent party that opposes the regulation of flag sizes is ACTBAC NC, and this organization is responsible for putting the rebel flags in their current location. He said ACTBAC is a Southern Poverty Law 13 Center designated hate group, and its sole purpose is to perpetuate the lost cause mythology of neo-confederate culture, and intimidate people of color. He said these massive flags do just that. Katherine Walker said she was born and bred in Orange County, and her roots run deep. She said she and her family are Americans, and she fully supports the adoption of the ordinance text amendment. She said it clarifies rules, is content neutral, and there is no rational reason for delay. She said the Confederate movement has been a growing threat to the American way of life, and the battle flag was not popular at the end of the civil war, but has become a symbol to encourage violence and oppression after the release of the film The Birth of a Nation. She said this is not a fight for heritage, but a fight for human decency. Chuck W illingham said he is a resident of Orange County, and a member of the Hate Free Schools coalition. He said the proposed text amendment is content neutral, and balances free speech and property rights of neighbors. He said the argument of southern pride and freedom of speech ignores race. He said the Confederate flag is used as a hate symbol by white supremacists, and the Confederate leaders supported slavery. He said the harm of slavery continues to affect all aspects of life for African Americans, and people of color. He said America will not be great until race is no longer a predictor of outcomes. He thanked the Board for updating the Unified Development Ordinance. Kathy Arab said the County does not need uniformity of flags, and diversity and individualism are hallmarks of this nation and County. She said erasing history, tearing down statues, and removing flags will not help to avoid the mistakes of the past. She said she would never display a Confederate flag, and much of southern history is shameful, but society has overcome the sins of the past, yet is not receiving credit for it. She said modern day white supremacists are in the minority, and it is completely unfair to law abiding, fair minded citizens to be punished because of a few white supremacists. She said personal property is indeed protected by the constitution, as is freedom of expression. She said flags are decorative, and the government has no business poking around or photographing decorations in one’s home, or on one’s property. She said flags are an expression of free speech, and personal style is not to be restricted unless one lives in a neighborhood with guidelines created by the residents of said neighborhood, to which all residents have agreed to abide through conversation and consensus. She said when they purchased their home over twenty years ago, the home came with a two-story flagpole cemented into the ground. She does not want to have to remove this, and the only flag she has ever flown from it is the stars and stripes. She said she does not see why the Commissioners care about regulating the height of her flagpole should an act of nature knock it down, and it need replacing. She said it sounds like the only reason the Commissioners are acting is because someone could not handle what someone else was doing on their own private property. She said she may not like it either, but it is not her property. She said the Commissioners have more important things to be working on than this issue. She recommended a fourth option be added to the recommendation: table this tedious, cumbersome, ridiculous, and unnecessary proposal. She said this proposed amendment is a slippery slope, which will chip away at the constitution. She said if free speech is not unlimited, then the stars and stripes should not be allowed to be burned, which it is frequently. She said government overreach is more harmful than a painted piece of fabric hanging around. David Carpenter said laws in general are usually blunt instruments, and are crafted in response to specific situations, and represent an attempt to resolve a problem or provide for particular needs. He said even in best case scenarios laws do not always work in the ways they were intended. He said the regulations being considered today are an attempt to address the problem of some people’s responses to seeing a Confederate flag. He said this is not an attempt to address a widespread existing problem with giant flags flying from towering flagpoles right at the borders of people’s property. He said this is an attempt to address the problem in a 14 roundabout way, as the County cannot regulate flag content. He said in the past flags have been exempt from County legislation governing signs on private property, and it is not difficult to see why this has been the case. He said flying flags has been a tradition throughout the nation’s history, and is a form of expression protected by the first amendment’s protection of free speech. He said even burning the national flag on public property is protected, so surely flying one on private property should be uncontroversial. He said the proposed amendment is not a blunt instrument, but rather is the wrong instrument, and likely to do as much harm as good. Billy Holloway said he lives across the road where the large flag flies now. He said the residents live on private property, and went through the appropriate channels to site this flag, and now the Board is trying to change the rules in order to suit other people who live nowhere near this flag. He said people do not have to travel this way if this flag offends them. He said the County has purchased property adjacent to his, and has made a commitment to working with him through the development of the property. He said he is concerned that he is unable to trust the County at its word, because if it can up and change the rules any time it pleases, the County may do the same to him. He said everyone has the right to do as one pleases on one’s own land, but the County appears to be judging people for their choices. Ken Rothrock said he has practiced law for over 37 years in Orange County, and he said the constitution sets out specifically what governments can do. He said if the government moves to infringe on any right, one should ask why. He said the abstract refers to the need for uniformity of size and number of flags on one’s property. He said he wonders why it is important to ensure uniformity, when Orange County is such a diverse community. He said it makes no sense for the County to seek such uniformity. He said Michael Harvey reported that staff chose for only three flags to be permitted because staff did not have enough time to think any further through the issue. He said if staff has not had enough time to think, then the process should pause. He said this proposed amendment seems to violate the equal protection clause a little bit in how it treats citizens. He said if one has a big home, one can enjoy a much bigger flag, but one with a small home is not afforded the same opportunity. He said this is allowing wealth to determine one’s expression. He asked if the Board would seriously consider why it wants to amend the UDO. Waddy Davis said he is from Chapel Hill, and is a combat veteran of Vietnam. He said if one can burn a flag if a public place, then one should be able to fly a flag of one’s choice and size. He said if the BOCC legislates the size of the flag on the personal property, he wonders what it will legislate next. He thanked the BOCC for its service, and urged the Board not to adopt this amendment. Angelique Lawyer said she is a retired Army nurse, and had a visceral reaction when she learned of this agenda topic. She said she has observed multiple large confederate flags in the County, and the Confederate flag means something different to an African American than to a white person. She said whites largely see it as a symbol of southern heritage, while African Americans largely see it as a hateful racial affront. She is in favor of the proposed amendment. William Carrington said he is a native of North Carolina, and is a Civil W ar historian, an expert on flags, and an author. He said there is as much misunderstanding and confusion out there, as there is accurate information. He said the constitution is often misquoted, all the way up to the U. S. Senate. He said he has not see the flag on Highway 70, but said it is the Army of Northern Virginia pattern battle flag, which is not the flag used by the Ku Klux Klan. He said this flag was a piece of military hardware, which came about after some duration of the civil war, when a flag was needed that did not look like the flag of the United States. He said he is offering his expertise to anyone that is interested in discussing some real history on flags. He said he is not taking a side, and he understands both sides of the issue. He said he believes that Confederate memorabilia belongs in museums. 15 Latarndra Sky read a quote from the Mayor of New Orleans: “They are not innocent remembrance of benign history. These monuments celebrate a fictional, sanitized confederacy ignoring the deaths, ignoring the enslavement, ignoring the terror that it actually stands for”. She said she was proud of the courageous act of the Mayor, because it was action taken in the absence of crisis. She said she has had to talk with children who question if they are hated, or do not belong here. She said when someone who has never experienced those feelings makes light of them, she is sickened. She said she is in support of this proposed amendment, and to continue the community conversations. She said the intention of the Confederate flag is to incite fear, and one should never be afraid in one’s own community. Hannah Skjellum said she is in support of this ordinance. Adam Beeman, Planning Board, referred to Commissioner Prices’ question about only 3 flags being permitted per flagpole. He said for him it is a question of safety, and the ratio of the flags to the pole is specific, so that the pole does not come down in the wind. He said his concern is the non-certified flagpole, which can fall down and cause significant damage to anyone in the area. He said those with smaller lots could have their flagpole reduced to a size that is proportionate to the lot size, and flagpoles should be placed back far enough so that if one does fall, it does not fall onto someone else’s property. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs for the Board to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Burroughs said the current regulations are unclear, and the County has the authority to adopt clear standards to ensure safety, and protect local skylines. She said other local governments have acted similarly, and she supports this content neutral amendment. She supports reducing the setback to 20 feet, and she would be amenable to two heights for residential and business flagpoles. Commissioner McKee said he does not have any particular concerns, and he would approve the tweaking of the setbacks and the heights. He said this is a legislative item, and legislative public hearings allow for comments at a later date, and if a decision is made tonight, no further comments can be made. He suggested delaying action until June 19th, which would allow for additional comments. Commissioner Marcoplos said Confederate flags are abhorrent racist statements, and he does not take the free speech and content neutral aspect of this lightly. He said the Board owes it to the community to figure this out, as it unacceptable to have members of the community feel threatened by the aggressive statements these flags are making. He said this came to the Board because of the size of Confederate flag, but any flag of that size would likely have attracted the attention of the Board. He said this proposed amendment is a simple courtesy, such as a noise ordinance, and it does not take away anyone’s freedom of expression. He said a noise ordinance does not prohibit music, but regulates the volume with which is can be played, while remaining a considerate neighbor. He said this issue is no different, and it is a question of volume and imposition, not restriction of free speech. He said this is a good ordinance that addresses a range of issues Commissioner Marcoplos said this issue points to a great failure of the educational system to teach the real history of racism, and its ongoing impact on society. Commissioner Jacobs said he was initially skeptical about changing the ordinance, and he is more comfortable with the idea that the Board is attempting to do something that is value neutral. He said Mr. Carrington’s remarks were good ones to follow up on, and he took offense to the recent HRC community meeting being called a “progressive activists rally”. He said more 16 conversations like tonight are necessary. He said many intelligent comments were made this evening, and it would be beneficial to invite Mr. Carrington the next time a community conversation occurs, to provide information about flags and flag history. Commissioner Jacobs said the Board once dealt with the issue of preventing hunting deer with dogs, as people were allowing dogs to trespass on properties. He said it seemed like a straightforward property rights issue, but the state legislature would not let the Board discuss it, and he said people have different opinions about property rights. Commissioner Jacobs said the Board is trying to make changes to regulate the effects on other people, and it is not an attack on the flag itself, but rather the size of the flag. Commissioner Jacobs said he would welcome further discussion regarding flags, and their uses in the 1860s versus the 1960s. Commissioner Price thanked the residents for coming out to speak, and said, in general, the people have expressed her sentiments. Commissioner Rich thanked all for coming out, and she said the number one job of the Board of County Commissioners is to keep residents safe. She said the Board owes the public a decision tonight, and this is a part of the UDO, which is living document. She said she is in favor of the amendment 4 and 7. She said if Chair Dorosin were present, he would say this is government in action. Commissioner McKee said he disagreed with making an immediate decision, and this Board is known for trying to gather all information, and allowing for exhaustive discussion before decisions are made A motion was made by Commissioner McKee to defer the decision to June 19th to allow for additional comments from the public that might be generated by the public comments made this evening. No Second. Motion fails. Commissioner Jacobs said someone expressed concern about the height of the flagpole versus the setback, and whether the flagpole could be moved so close as to land on someone else’s property. He asked if staff discussed this, and if this is worth revisiting. Michael Harvey said staff did discuss this, and staff has been as equitable as possible. He reminded the BOCC that flagpoles erected on non-residential property would have to get appropriate building permits in order to guarantee wind load. He said flagpoles on residential property do not necessarily have to get a building permit. He said staff has come up with a reasonable standard, which was presented to the Planning Board. He said there was concern about smaller lots, and as such, the County Attorney has offered a modification to address smaller lots, as well as eliminate contradictory height limits for poles. He said ultimately the Board will provide direction to staff as to how this amendment package will go. Commissioner Marcoplos referred to attachment 4 including attachment 7, and asked if this has the one year amortization. John Roberts said both have a one-year amortization for flags. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if this exempts schools, fire departments, and County buildings. John Roberts said no. Michael Harvey said neither ordinance proposal would exempt any land use activity, and it is based on zoning. Commissioner Marcoplos said this could potentially cost schools and fire departments money in order to bring flags into compliance. 17 Michael Harvey said at some at some point anyone with a non-compliant flag will have to bring it into compliance, regardless of who that person/business/school, etc. is. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if consistent height is part of this. John Roberts said yes, and this is recommended in attachment 7. Commissioner Marcoplos said he would be in favor of a future UDO conversation about exempting the schools, fire departments, and other government agencies in that realm. Commissioner Price asked if the Towns have similar ordinances on the flags, and, if not, will the County ask the Towns to create such an ordinance, since many schools are within Town limits. Michael Harvey said Towns can choose to regulate this issue or not, consistent with their enabling authority. He said there are communities within Orange County that have standards governing the erection of flags. He said this ordinance is modeled on certain provisions from Durham, in terms of size and height limits. Michael Harvey said Chapel Hill and Hillsborough exempt the American flag and the State flag, and both have some requirements. He said Orange County adopting an ordinance does not require a town to do the same. He said the only issue the Towns have to assess is whether any ordinance the Towns have is content neutral, which is between the Town officials, its Planning Board and Attorneys. Commissioner Price said many people who spoke tonight live within the Towns, and she would hope that there would be similar ordinances throughout the County at some point. Michael Harvey said Orange County issues are unique, and may not be experienced by the Towns and vice versa. Commissioner Price asked if this will impact schools that are located within the municipalities. Michael Harvey said those schools would have to abide by any applicable municipal ordinance. Commissioner Jacobs asked if it is clear in the ordinance that the Board is talking about a maximum height. Michael Harvey said yes, and the maximum height would be 24 feet in a residential district, and 54 feet in a non-residential district. Commissioner Jacobs said the pole can be up to 24 feet, but not limited to 24 feet. Michael Harvey said it can be no higher than 24 feet, and this specific language can be found on page 19, point #2. Commissioner McKee said he understood Commissioner Marcoplos’ concern about the impact on the County, schools and fire departments, but he would strongly oppose exempting the County from regulations it is putting on everyone else. A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs for the Board to adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency, as contained in Attachment 3. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Marcoplos, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to adopt the County’s Attorney’s May 10, 2018 Proposed UDO Text Amendments as contained in Attachment 7. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 18 Commissioner Jacobs said he would like for the County to have more community conversations and to ask the HRC to work on having another community conversation on the issue of different flags, and how they affect people. Bonnie Hammersley said she would talk with the HRC. 6. Regular Agenda NONE 7. Reports NONE 12. Information Items • May 1, 2018 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List 13. Closed Session NONE 14. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to adjourn the meeting at 9:09 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Penny Rich, Vice-Chair Donna Baker Clerk to the Board