Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11-09-20171 APPROVED 11/20/2017 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION November 9, 2017 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Dorosin and Commissioners Mia Burroughs, Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Mark Marcoplos, Earl McKee, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: 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) Chair Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Chair Dorosin said he would like to add an item to the agenda for discussion: the Assemblies of Governments (AOG) meeting scheduled for November 16th. He said the Manager received an email request from the Town of Chapel Hill (from the Mayor via the Town Manager) to postpone the AOG meeting. A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner McKee to add this item to the agenda and to add it to the beginning of the meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair Dorosin said he received an email via Bonnie Hammersley from the Chapel Hill Town Manager, stating that the Mayor had asked for the AOG meeting to be postponed. He said the Town of Chapel Hill was not ready to discuss some of the items on the draft agenda, such as the Food Council, WASMBA, and the Greene Tract. Chair Dorosin said he had met with the Mayor and the Town Manager, along with the County Manager, in an AOG agenda planning session about these items being on the agenda. He said there were no concerns initially, so he is not sure why this is happening now. He said the purpose of the meeting is to have dialogue, much like a work session. Commissioner Marcoplos arrived at 7:12 p.m. Commissioner Rich said she contacted Town Council Member Greene once she received this email. Council Member Greene said she was taken back about not talking about the Food Council, since it does involve all 4 governments. Commissioner Rich said the Food Council had already started developing its presentation. Commissioner Rich suggested having the meeting, and sending out an invitation to all newly elected officials to attend as well. Commissioner Burroughs said if the Town is not ready to meet, then the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) should respect that, as it sounds like there are some communication issues. She recommended Chair Dorosin and Mayor Hemminger speak 2 and try to figure out why the Town wanted to cancel, and try to find a another date for the meeting. Commissioner Jacobs asked if a substitute date was proposed. Chair Dorosin said no. Commissioner Jacobs said he was ready to meet. He agreed with Commissioner Burroughs that the Chair should speak with the Mayor, but to be respectful of the Town’s request. Commissioner Price asked if other Mayors have provided input. Chair Dorosin said he talked with Mayor Lavelle, who said she would be fine either way; but would not be comfortable having a meeting where there may be a boycott. Commissioner Price said since Chapel Hill is a partner, it would not make sense to have the meeting without them, and to respect the Town’s request. She said she sees no point in a stilted meeting, but she wants to re-schedule. She said she is confused as to why Chapel Hill would not attend and be part of the conversation. She said the purpose of the meeting is dialogue. Bonnie Hammersley said after she forwarded the email to the Chair/Vice Chair, she sent it to the Mayors and Managers of the Towns of Carrboro and Hillsborough. She did not hear back from Carrboro yet, but the Town of Hillsborough said the Mayor was fine with having the meeting or canceling it. Commissioner Rich said she does not think that the full Town Council was even aware of the postponement request from the Mayor. She said the Food Council’s item was time sensitive, and it needs some additional funding. Chair Dorosin referred to the Food Council, and said there is a discussion of it going from an outside agency to a set up like the Partnership to End Homelessness. Bonnie Hammersley said if the AOG does not happen, a budget amendment could be done if necessary. Commissioner Jacobs said if this is a timing issue, then Orange County can address the need, and then address the issue with its partners. Commissioner Jacobs asked Chair Dorosin to challenge the Mayor to come up with a date in the near future, rather than wait until April 2018. He said to add the School Board chairs to the AOG meetings. Commissioner Marcoplos said this meeting has been on the calendar for a long time and effort has been put into planning for the meeting, but it is not the BOCC’s place to order another entity to do anything. He said he can accept the postponement. Commissioner McKee said if the BOCC wanted a postponement, he would expect an accommodation; thus he would like to respect the Town’s request, and try to get another date scheduled. Chair Dorosin said he will follow up with the Mayor of Chapel Hill to see if there is any further information. He said he wants to respect the Town of Chapel Hill, but feels that the postponement request, in and of itself, is disrespectful; especially due to the previous meeting where all, but one, agenda items were discussed and agreed upon. He said if the Town insists on a postponement, he will postpone the meeting. Commissioner Rich asked if the Food Council item could be added to the November 20th regular BOCC meeting. The Board agreed by consensus. Commissioner Jacobs reiterated his request for a specific rescheduled date sooner rather than later, with the inclusion of the School Board Chairs, and anyone else who may want to attend. 1. Board of Commissioners - Annual Advisory Board Selection Process Discussion 3 Chair Dorosin said this issue came up last February, due to an expressed desire to increase diversity and broader participation on boards. He said the policy was not changed, but the BOCC agreed to discuss it at a later time. Chair Dorosin said he proposes the alternative that no board slots are saved at all, and all seats are open. He said in the first round, one cannot pick a board on which one currently serves. He said in all subsequent rounds, the Commissioners could choose freely. He said this would allow Commissioners the opportunity to serve on all manner of Boards. Commissioner Rich said she and Commissioner Marcoplos are on the Chatham Orange Work Group, but it has never met. She asked if it was going to meet. Craig Benedict, Planning Director, said Orange County had been asked by Chatham to delay until September 2017, but staff has still not been given a date when this group will meet. Commissioner Rich asked if two new Commissioners will be assigned to this group, if the first meeting is not being scheduled until January 2018. Craig Benedict said all entities have made appointments, and it could be suggested to start in January. Donna Baker said the Boards and Commissions will be chosen in February, as there is no work session in January. Chair Dorosin said the choices could be made in January at the BOCC retreat. Commissioner Price suggested that Commissioner Marcoplos and Commissioner Rich stay on the Chatham Orange Work group since it has never met. Commissioner Rich said her point is that the BOCC waits too long to assign boards and commissions. Chair Dorosin said he would like to discuss the policy first. Commissioner McKee said some of these boards need continuity, and he is not married to any of the boards on which he serves. He said there is a learning curve on some of the Boards, but he is happy to change any of the boards on which he serves. He asked if there is a goal hoping to be achieved by changing the policy. Chair Dorosin said all of the Commissioners are responsible for everything that the County does, and there is an overreliance of people staying on boards too long. He said the best example is GoTriangle, and the rest of the Board is left under informed as it relies on the one member serving on a board. He said he trusts all the Commissioners, but thinks the Commissioners would be better served by gaining knowledge of many boards, by serving on many types of boards. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there is a middle path between changing every year, and allowing a Commissioner to serve on one board for years on end. He said he would want Commissioner Jacobs to stay on GoTriangle at this time, but perhaps some other boards could be shuffled around via open dialogue. Chair Dorosin said he believed that his proposal is a middle path. He said not saving positions does not mean that all positions will be shuffled. Commissioner Jacobs said when he joined the BOCC, he was given the board positions of the Commissioner that he replaced on the BOCC. He said there was no choice, but over the years this process has become more open. Commissioner Jacobs said a limit could be placed on how long a Commissioner could be on any board. He said each Commissioner could have one pick, and if one is an officer that could be one’s pick, or not. He said the rest can be negotiated, rather than a round robin, leading to a less formal process. He said there are some arguments about continuity, and when one is up to speed on a board, one becomes a more effective member. Commissioner Burroughs said she is inclined to keep a process, and she would go with the proposed one or a modified version. 4 Commissioner Marcoplos said he would put a three-year term limit on positions, and make it retroactive. Commissioner Price agreed that they need a process, and to continue to keep one board (either one of choice, or due to being an officer) for however long. Commissioner Rich said she liked Chair Dorosin’s proposal. She said if the first round is open, it may take care of the term limits. She agreed with having a process. Commissioner Jacobs said he does not feel that strong about any of this. Chair Dorosin said this proposal is forcing the BOCC to do something different. He said if term limits are imposed, it should be two years. He said that ‘no saves’ produces the outcome that Commissioner Jacobs provided. Commissioner McKee said he still does not see a problem, but rather a solution searching for a problem. He said the existing process is good, and term limits would be fine, but he does not know what the problem is. He said this seems like change for the sake of change. Chair Dorosin said he disagrees, and there are people in the same positions for years, which limits the exposure and engagement of other BOCC members. Commissioner McKee said throwing the process wide-open limits the continuity. Commissioner Price agreed with Commissioner McKee. Chair Dorosin said the current process, having one Commissioner potentially serving on the same board for years on end, is not collectively good for Orange County. Commissioner Price said she would like to pick at least one to keep. Commissioner Jacobs said he does not really see what the problem is, but he understands what Chair Dorosin is trying to achieve. He said he would prefer having an option to have a conversation about giving up boards that are picked. Commissioner Rich said part of this conversation was raised by Commissioner Jacobs due to Commissioner Gordon being on the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for 18 years, which led to the rest of BOCC having no understanding of the MPO. Commissioner Jacobs said he agrees that a Commissioner should not serve on the same board for that many years. Commissioner Rich asked if Commissioner Jacobs is seeking open dialogue, and if this would be effective. She said this current BOCC may be able to talk openly, but not all Boards can. Commissioner Jacobs said if a term limit is added, this problem could be addressed. Commissioner Price asked if there is a reason that the BOCC cannot trade between the work session and the official vote. Chair Dorosin said it should be done in an open meeting in the interest of transparency Chair Dorosin said there are several options, which could be combined: • Option A – His proposed process: wide open in round one; no saves; and pick as you like thereafter. • Option B – keep the current process • Option C – modified current process: one save only (whether an officer or not) • Option D – add term limits • Option E – one save; instead of going around the circle, go down the list of boards to see who is interested. If more than one Commissioner is interested then have discussion or decide via a vote. Commissioner Rich said option E could become very personal. Commissioner McKee said he would support option C with the addition of term limits. 5 Commissioner Marcoplos said he agrees, and would want to make the term limits retroactive. Commissioner Rich said term limits should be 2 years. Commissioner McKee said to start the term limits anew, not retroactively. Chair Dorosin said the combining of options C and D seems most favorable, with two-year term limits, a round robin process, and collegial conversation. He said option E could be added, but that does not seem well supported by the BOCC. He asked if the Clerk could bring this back for approval and the Board agreed. Chair Dorosin said he wanted to bring up one more housekeeping item: when the Board votes for Chair/Vice Chair in December, it is done via a written ballot that is given to the Clerk; the Clerk reads the votes, but never states who voted for whom. He said he finds this to be inappropriate, and akin to a secret ballot. He said the votes are public record, but he thinks the votes, and who cast them, should be read aloud. Commissioner McKee said it is available to the public as a public record anyway. Chair Dorosin asked if there is a reason that the Clerk should not read this information aloud, as it allows for greater transparency. Commissioner Burroughs agreed with Chair Dorosin. Commissioner Price asked if a written ballot is even necessary, or is a show of hands acceptable. John Roberts said the action will be reflected in the minutes, which is the official record. He said other boards have used electronic voting, which shows up on the video screen of the meeting. Commissioner Price said if the intention is to see who is voting for whom, then there is no need for a ballot; a raising of hands will suffice. Commissioner Jacobs said any changes should be added to a future agenda for a vote. The Clerk will provide an abstract at the November 20th meeting. 2. Review and Update of Portions of the Unified Development Ordinance and Code of Ordinances John Roberts presented each of these items. His recommendations are noted in red: The purpose of this item is to both provide an update to the Board of Commissioners on ordinance amendments that are in process and request direction from the Board on what action to take on ordinances that may be outdated and no longer relevant, not authorized by law, or confusing and burdensome to the public. The County Attorney provided an overview and gave a brief background on the following ordinances for discussion: • Unified Development Ordinance • Conditional Use Districts – Update • Number of Land Uses – Update • Major Subdivisions – Update • Code of Ordinances • Chapter 1; General Penalties – Request Direction • Chapter 4; Animal Control – Update-Amendment forthcoming • Chapter 6; Insulation Contractors – Repeal recommended • Chapter 10; Cable Communications – Removal from Code recommended • Chapter 16; Noise – Request Direction 6 • Chapter 18; Skateboarding, Animals – Repeal recommended • Chapter 24; Exposure of the Female Body – Repeal recommended • Chapter 34; Solid Waste Management – Update UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE Conditional Use Districts- Better option (Conditional Zoning) already exists in the UDO; both the North Carolina Bar Association and the University of North Carolina, School of Government has recommended that the legislature repeal Conditional Use District authority for multiple reasons. The legislature is currently working on this. It is unduly burdensome to applicants and County staff. It requires a legislative rezoning AND a quasi-judicial hearing. Everything that may be accomplished in a Conditional Use District may be accomplished through Conditional Zoning. • “A conditional use district rezoning is initiated when the owner asks for a rezoning to a new zoning district that does not have any automatically permitted uses, only uses allowed by the issuance of a conditional use permit. In the usual conditional use district rezoning process, the owner applies for a special or conditional use permit for a particular project at the same time the rezoning is requested and the two decisions (the rezoning and the permit) are considered in a single proceeding.” (UNC School of Government) • “This is different from a conditional use district in that there is no accompanying conditional use permit. All of the site specific standards and conditions (sometimes including a site plan) are incorporated into the zoning district regulations.” (UNC School of Government) The Board agreed for John Roberts to begin the repeal to planning board and staff. Reduce the number of land uses - Planning is currently rewriting the Table of Permitted Uses, so this is the best time to reduce the number of land uses. Examples for cleanup: No need for distinctions between Bed & Breakfast, Bed & Breakfast Inn, Country Inn, Residential Hotel, Rooming House, etc. Commissioner Price asked if an Airbnb could go in here. John Roberts said yes it could be here, either within an existing group or as one of its own. Chair Dorosin asked if, referring to his example, there is a difference in all of these, and if the purpose is to have fewer uses and broader definition. John Roberts said yes. Chair Dorosin said an existing Country Inn would still have a category under which it would fall, but it may be a new umbrella term. John Roberts gave the example that bed and breakfast and bed and breakfast inn could be combined into one category with an either/or definitional structure; and country inn, residential hotel and rooming house could be combined into another category with a separate either/or definitional structure. He said these changes will make this easier to read for the applicants. He said every use should be covered as much as possible, but it can be better categorized. The Board agreed by consensus for John Roberts to proceed with the amendment. GENERAL ORDINANCES 7 Chapter 1 Penalties- The Board indicated it may not be comfortable with violations of county ordinances resulting in a $500 fine and 30 days in jail. Reducing the penalties here will reduce the penalties for all those ordinances that don’t have a specific penalty included within their terms. Commissioner Price said her concern with this one is that it sounds like the County is creating a debtors prison. John Roberts said each offense is a separate offense, and could result in thousands of dollars. He does not think that jail time has ever been imposed. Commissioner Jacobs asked if this has been changed anytime recently, because he thought the BOCC objected previously to a $500 fine, and changed the wording to “not to exceed $500.” John Roberts said some ordinances have individual penalties, and this is the general catchall penalty for the entire ordinance. He said some other individual ordinances specify certain terms. Commissioner Jacobs said all should say up to $500, or 30 days in jail, as this gives the BOCC discretion. Chair Dorosin asked if these penalties always come back to the Board, or only if the offending party decides to make an appeal. John Roberts said these penalties do not come back to the Board unless there was an amendment, and he provided an example of violations of the solid waste ordinance due to a lack of permit, and there was a $500 fine for each day of continued violation. He said this rose to tens of thousands of dollars in fines. He said the case was ultimately settled, permits obtained, and a much lesser amount of fees paid. Commissioner Marcoplos clarified that one could receive a $500 fine and 30 days in jail for putting the wrong type of insulation in a wall, that may have gone unnoticed. John Roberts said this is on here for discussion because the Chief Building Inspector said this ordinance has never been enforced during his 14-year tenure, and it would be difficult to do so due to substantial changes in state law since the ordinance was implemented. Commissioner Marcoplos said what happens to these types of laws. John Roberts said laws remain until they are repealed, and he did not know that this was not being enforced. Commissioner Rich asked if there is a reason to have an ordinance that is not being enforced, or cannot be enforced. Chair Dorosin said this is the point of the discussion, and this specific example is recommended for repeal. Commissioner Price said if this item is going to remain, then the fine should be up to $500 and up to 30 days in jail. John Roberts said that is the general penalty right now, and if the Board wants him to look at other ordinances that do not include “up to” language, he can do so and bring those back as well to repeal or amended. Commissioner Price asked if there is someone responsible for determining penalty or jail time. John Roberts said it depends on the type of offense. He said the department director would determine a civil penalty, and a judge would determine a criminal penalty in the court system. Commissioner Price asked if this is true of jail time as well. 8 John Roberts said a judge, via a prosecution by the District Attorney’s office, always determines jail time, and only in criminal cases. The Board agreed by consensus to change the wording to “up to $500” on all ordinances. Chapter 4 Animal Control Ordinance- Amend to clearly specify what may be appealed to the appeal panels. Current language is problematic in that it could be construed to allow appeal of items not traditionally subject to appeal. John Roberts said this amendment will come back to the Board in December or January. He said the current language could be interpreted to allow appeal of every action that the Animal Services Department takes to the hearing pool and the Superior Court. He said this was not the intent of the language. Commissioner McKee asked if one is able to appeal in all cases anyway. John Roberts said one can always sue the County. Chapter 6 Insulation Contractors Ordinance - Obsolete and no longer enforced. The state building code has been amended substantially since this ordinance was adopted. The state building code now allows contractors to engage numerous alternative compliance methods that circumvent the ordinance. John Roberts said if the BOCC is comfortable with repealing this, he would recommend that division 1 be left in place, with some amending of the language as to the insulation that is put in County buildings. Commissioner Marcoplos clarified that this law would be in place only for County buildings. John Roberts said yes, if the BOCC is interested in this. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if this could be achieved via a contract as opposed to a law. John Roberts said yes it could. The Board agreed to add this language to contracts instead of an ordinance and to repeal the ordinance. Chapter 10 Cable Communications Ordinance - Governs franchises and thus not appropriate for the Code of Ordinances as franchise ordinances are maintained separate and apart from the Code. John Roberts recommended the Board remove from Code and maintain as a separate franchise ordinance template for possible repeal at a later date. The County’s franchise with Time Warner expired in 2009 and the authority for granting and renewing such franchises was withdrawn by the legislature in SL 2006-151 The Board agreed. Chapter 16 Noise Ordinance - Board members previously indicated the board may wish to amend the noise ordinance. John Roberts said Board members have expressed some concerns about this. He said section 16-52 is different from section 16-53, with the difference being that 16- 52 prohibits specific actions on a property from 9:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m.…lawn mowers, chain saws, compression engines, etc.; and section 16-53 refers to the decibel measurement restrictions come into play. 9 John Roberts said this item is for Board discussion. Commissioner Rich referred to “unreasonably loud,” and asked if this is considered in the meter measurement on 16-53, or if it is a subjective opinion. John Roberts said unreasonably loud is defined on page 7. Commissioner Marcoplos clarified that if one is more than 300 feet away, then the law is not applicable. John Roberts said yes. Commissioner Marcoplos said a friend, who owns land near him, had another friend who wanted to test a semi-automatic weapon. He said this land is about 300 yards away from his own house, but the shooting sounded as though it were in the back yard. John Roberts said the Sheriff reports that regulating firearm discharge is hard to enforce with the way the ordinance is written. He said firearms discharge is specifically exempt from enforcement under this ordinance. Commissioner Burroughs asked if it is exempt from the ordinance due to the 2nd amendment. John Roberts said it was just how the ordinance was written. He said this can be found on page 10, number 17. He said even if the exemption did not exist, the Sheriff reports it would still be difficult to enforce. He said the Sheriff is willing to speak to this matter. John Roberts said it is lawful to regulate firearms discharge though a noise ordinance, but there are restrictions in state law as to how it could be enforced or applied to properties. Commissioner Burroughs asked if the difficulty in enforcement is because of the state law. John Roberts said yes. He said if the exemption were to be removed, the state law says that noise ordinances or nuisance ordinances cannot be applied to sports shooting ranges, if those sport-shooting ranges are in compliance with that ordinance at the time they began operations. He said the definition of a sport shooting range is very vague. Commissioner Jacobs said the Firearms Safety Committee grappled with how to use the ordinance to address noises (gunfire), without impinging on rights to hunt, and he said there were concerns about rapid fire shooting versus target shooting, and time of day shooting. He said this was left unresolved, with the idea that it would come back through the noise ordinance. He said whatever is decided, there should be further discussion, especially as to whether neighbors have a legitimate issue with some impingement on their sense of safety and peace of mind. Commissioner McKee said he is not sure how the interplay would be seen by state law if a small group of people got together to target shoot in a backyard setting. He asked if this would be defined as a sport-shooting range. John Roberts read the definition of sport shooting in the state law, which has not been challenged in court. He said this does not mean one can go into one’s back yard and shoot against a tree. John Roberts said the Board could alleviate some concerns with firearm shooting time limitations. Commissioner Rich said when noise happens the Sheriff’s office checks it out, and by the time they arrive everything has stopped. She asked if it is possible to enforce ordinances. Chair Dorosin that is a common problem with all noise complaints. Commissioner Burroughs said time restrictions aligned with state hunting laws may be worth exploring. 10 Commissioner Marcoplos said what is the neighborly thing to do, and he usually tells his neighbors if he is having a party; and that is what people should do even with shooting. He asked if there is any way to require people to talk to their neighbors. John Roberts said communication cannot be required, but an educational campaign that encourages such communication could be done. Chair Dorosin said a good neighbor campaign could be tried, and perhaps the National Rifle Association (NRA) could help. Commissioner McKee agreed, and it worked with the deer hunting issue, which is greatly improved. Chair Dorosin said there is value to educating residents on the limitations of the State law and the County ordinances. Commissioner Marcoplos said he is totally against involving the NRA, and the County should create its own campaign. Commissioner Rich said it is important for residents to move away from the belief that the BOCC is doing nothing about issues about the noise around the Barn. She said the BOCC is listening to the concerns, but there are limits on what the BOCC can do. Commissioner Marcoplos said to have a public neighbor campaign, encouraging residents to communicate with neighbors, and be more cognizant of how actions are affecting their neighbors. He said a large part of this is explaining the limits of the law/ordinance. Chair Dorosin said there appears to be some interest in adding time limitations to gun shooting/practicing. Commissioner Jacobs said it does not hurt to have an education campaign stating, “in accordance with State law on restricting the hours of hunting, Orange County asks that you restrict your shooting to a certain time frame. And if you plan to shoot, please notify your neighbors of what you are doing”. He said a combination of both an educational campaign and time limitations may be wise. Commissioner Rich asked if there is a reason that this did not get resolved during the firearms safety committee. Commissioner McKee said the dialogue at the final meetings was scattered, and an agreement could not be reached. He said as the discussion started to dissolve, it became more acrimonious and personal, with no hope of compromise. He asked Commissioner Marcoplos if there is a reason why he feels so strongly about not involving the NRA. Commissioner Marcoplos said the County can achieve such a campaign on its own without involving the NRA, which only wants to expand the use and sale of guns. Commissioner McKee agreed that the NRA is not interested in expanding regulations, but he found the deer hunting campaign to be far more effective due to the involvement of the NRA. He said he would not want to close the door on the involvement of the NRA. Commissioner Marcoplos said a good neighbor policy should require gun shooters to consult their neighbors, but should also require neighbors to be amenable to the conversation about reasonable times of shooting. Chair Dorosin summarized the agreed upon actions: taking out the exception; time limitations; educational campaign. Commissioner Jacobs said if this comes back to the BOCC, it should be placed as a regular item on an agenda, and not as a consent agenda item. Commissioner Price asked if this discussion only pertains to firearms noise, or does it pertain to all noise, such as a chainsaw, etc. Chair Dorosin said those other items are already in the ordinance. 11 John Roberts said he would look at the time limits for the hunting state laws, and bring forth some options. He said firearm noise would likely be separate from other noise limits. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Clerk would notify the members of the firearms committee when this item comes back. Chair Dorosin said the Board can see if matching the times limits is important when this item comes back. Chapter 18 Weapons Ordinance - State law requires certain concealed firearms be allowed in areas the ordinance currently restricts. Need to update definitions and prohibitions to comply with state law. John Roberts said an amendment is forthcoming. John Roberts said the next two are related: Skateboarding Ordinance - Prohibited in facilities use policy. Having it in the Code criminalizes this activity. Animals Ordinance - Prohibits dogs in county-owned buildings except in limited circumstances. Allowable circumstances don’t comply with current law. John Roberts said the language in the Animals Ordinance is not compliant with Federal law, and the Skateboarding Ordinance is already in the facilities use policy, and having it in the ordinance criminalizes the activity. He said if a criminal action is needed on this activity, it could simply be a trespass. He said the language in the Animals Ordinance is probably unlawful, and there is a provision allowing service animals in County buildings in the facilities use policy. He recommends repealing both of these. Commissioner McKee asked if the Federal law specifically identifies dogs as the only service animal. John Roberts said no. Commissioner Price referred to skateboarding, and admitted she is no fan of it; but she asked if an Olympic sport should be criminalized. She said many cities embrace skateboarding, and the County needs to get with the times to a certain extent. John Roberts said he is recommending repealing the skateboarding ordinance. Commissioner Jacobs said a skate park was once considered for Twin Creeks Park, but this park was never developed. He said it may be a good idea to incorporate this into a County park. Chair Dorosin said consensus is to allow skateboarding, and to comply with Federal law regarding service animals, repealing both ordinances. Chapter 24 Regulating Exposure of Female Human Body Ordinance - Likely illegal and discriminatory. The Board agreed this should be repealed. Chapter 34 Solid Waste Management Ordinance - The passage of House Bill 56 may require amendment to the ordinance, particularly with regard to flow control. This may be combined with a previously requested full ordinance rewrite. John Roberts said there are many things that can be cleaned up and his office is working on this. 12 Additional Discussion Chair Dorosin asked if there is an update on the permitted uses table that the BOCC reviewed previously. Craig Benedict said the County must list each item that it wants to prohibit. He said this makes the list bigger, which is not the County’s goal. He said staff is trying to cluster items, and have definitions that cover as many uses as possible. Michael Harvey, Project Coordinator Current Planning, said there is a fine balance, and he is trying to be as inclusive as he can. He said one of the elements associated with this is incorporating comments made by elected officials and the Planning Board from last year concerning the various Economic Development Districts (EDD). He said the table of permitted uses project is not going to consolidate the nine EDDs that currently exist, however consolidation would be a good idea. Craig Benedict said decisions need to be made about the procedures, and which processes are easier and which ones are harder. He said specific uses have to be married to a process. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if it is the State which says if a use it not specifically prohibited, then it must be allowed. Michael Harvey said the States wants ordinances to be as inclusive as possible, so that the layman can read and understand them. He said this was reaffirmed by the Bird vs. Franklin State Supreme Court case. He said staff is seeking to assure that viable uses are listed, and identified as permissible or not; or expanding definitions to insure that staff is categorizing independent land uses to avoid the embarrassment of a land owner saying, “It is not listed, so I can do it.” Commissioner Marcoplos asked if such a situation has ever arisen. Michael Harvey said yes, in the Bird vs. Franklin case, which involved a shooting range. Commissioner Marcoplos said that the local government made a mistake. Michael Harvey said yes, and that is why staff is looking at this very carefully. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there is any recourse that can be taken should a resident come up with a use that simply could not have been predicted, and thus included in the list of prohibited uses. Craig Benedict said the County should not be in interpretive mode, as there is not meant to be a lot of discretion in decision-making. He said if there is a very good definition that seems to cover as much as possible, and staff deems a use as prohibited, the resident can appeal that decision. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to adjourn the meeting at 9:34 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Mark Dorosin, Chair Donna Baker Clerk to the Board 13