ORD-2009-144 Application of Dimensional Requirements to Establish Regulation Governing the Development of Drive-thru Facilities within the County–Option Two-Regulation

Browse Search

16 245 Brian Crawford: I looked at the legal challenges, one thing that popped out at me. If you go and do a 246 general ban across the whole County, and we do run into a developer or someone who wants to challenge 247 it, would we be able to sustain it based on such a general ban. It's something we've got to think about in 248 this process. That is the exact thought that lead me to be very neutral on this whole plan and just say, we 249 might want to sit back and not do anything about it. There are just so many issues that we can't anticipate 250 at this point. 251 252 Mark Marcoplos: I am very much in favor of an awareness campaign, I think its key. I think a ban fits in 253 perfectly with it. I just want to put things in perspective. If you don't think it makes much difference, you 254 might take that logic and say we're in a drought, I could change my showerhead to a water saving 255 showerhead but it doesn't make that much difference. That's a flawed argument because every little bit of 256 progress helps and every small action is part of greater progress. I think you have to look at this as one 257 part of a solution. It complements an awareness campaign because it's something that gets people's 258 attention. It shows some seriousness and gets attention, it doesn't mean we are going to immediately go 259 out and bull doze all the existing drive - thrus. It really is a relatively small number of unknown future drive - 260 thrus that may be built. That means it's a pretty easy way to make a point and cut down on future pollution 261 and the problems that drive - thrus cause. There's this idea it's going to have this huge impact on 262 businesses across the County, its not that kind of thing. It has been very successful in Carrboro and 1 263 haven't heard anyone complain about it. 264 265 Michael Harvey: I think there is a consensus that there is going to be some motion made that includes the 266 provision for a campaign on educating people about emissions and idling, I would urge the Board to do this 267 in two steps. The initial motion being made to recommend to the County Commissioner to consider an 268 educational campaign, keeping that separate from any motion concerning the disposition this item. 269 270 MOTION made by Mary Bobbitt-Cooke to establish an awareness campaign for the entire County but 271 specifically targeted at schools where young children are present and that it precede any regulation on 272 drive- thrus. Seconded by Jeff Schmitt. 273 274 Larry Wright: So this has to precede anything? 275 276 Mary Bobbitt- Cooke: I'm recommending two phases, the first being an education awareness outreach 277 comprehensive and it specifically targets schools where there is a lot of idling waiting for children. Phase 278 two would be that there would be no regulation until this campaign has run and people have a chance to 279 learn about ozone emissions and clean air. 280 281 Larry Wright: I find this motion flawed, I like the first part but the second could make this go on forever 282 where nothing is ever done. I cannot support that because you could educate forever. 283 284 Mark Marcoplos: I agree. I think we should decouple that. The second motion I believe we're going to 285 hear speaks to regulation. I think we would want to be able to vote on a comprehensive awareness 286 campaign with or without any regulations. I think we would want to be able to say we like that in and of 287 itself. I am totally in favor of this awareness campaign but to have the condition that it must happen before 288 any regulation is not something that I can support. 289 290 MOTION made by Mary Bobbitt-Cooke recommending a comprehensive countywide education awareness 291 outreach campaign to specifically focus on schools where there is a lot idling affecting the health of 292 children. Seconded by Jeff Schmitt. 293