Browse
Search
ORD-2001-031 Regulated Recyclable Materials Ordinance (2)
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Ordinances
>
Ordinance 2000-2009
>
2001
>
ORD-2001-031 Regulated Recyclable Materials Ordinance (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/26/2012 12:05:02 PM
Creation date
10/23/2012 3:40:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
12/10/2001
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Ordinance
Agenda Item
9e
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ordinance includes too long of a waiting period for the review of building permits that involve demolition <br /> or deconstruction. The time uncertainty will add to the cost of the projects in Orange County. <br /> Commissioner Jacobs asked about a threshold for remodeling and other homeowner repairs and <br /> renovations that would be exempt. Gayle Wilson said that the threshold was eliminated, but in practice, <br /> there would be a limited number of demolition projects that would be subject to the delay. <br /> Richard Leber spoke as a member of the C&D task force. He said that the task force felt that <br /> recycling today was a good idea to extend the life of the landfill here in Orange County. Another feeling <br /> of the task force was that Orange County residents should be responsible to take care of those items <br /> that we can within the County itself and recycle if possible. The third item is that there is a feeling that <br /> some items have more economic value than other values. <br /> Howard McAdams said that the farmers of Orange County strongly object to the solid waste <br /> proposal, which contains the provision to prohibit burning of stumps, brush, and trees from clearing land <br /> for agricultural uses. The main objections are that there would be great additional cost to alternative <br /> methods of taking care of the trees and brush left from clearing of land for agricultural use. Also, the <br /> farmers have no way of passing this additional cost to the people because they are usually not able to <br /> set the prices they receive for their products. Developers can pass increased costs along to buyers of <br /> their land. There are relatively small amounts of land cleared each year for agricultural use in Orange <br /> County. Occasionally situations arise where farmers want to even out a field, reclaim a grownup field, or <br /> clean up pastures where trees have fallen from hurricanes or wind storm damages such as we have <br /> seen in the past several years. Farmers need to have the ability to continue to burn this debris to make <br /> their operations feasible. Increased costs of doing business from new regulations add to the difficulty of <br /> maintaining farming profitability. Anything that affects profitability discourages agriculture and makes it <br /> harder for those currently in farming to keep farming. He said that tax records would show if land was in <br /> land use and it would be easy to distinguish developed land from agricultural land. He also asked that <br /> there be exemptions from storm damage burning. <br /> Chair Halkiotis asked Karen McAdams, Mr. McAdams' wife, if there is a record of how much land is <br /> cleared for agricultural uses and she said that her estimate is about 75 acres. The other uses are very <br /> limited. The land clearing would be the largest use. <br /> James Horner, a sod farmer in northern Orange County, said that he opposes the burning ban for <br /> agricultural use. If he expands his operation, the cost would be too much if he could not burn. <br /> Chair Halkiotis said that he would personally not want to do anything that would hurt Mr. Horner's <br /> business. He congratulated him on his sod operation. <br /> Chair Halkiotis asked about how often a tub grinder is brought in and Gayle Wilson said that he <br /> brings it in about two or three times a year. They wait until they have 2,000 tons of yard waste material. <br /> It costs $10.00 a ton to grind the debris. He said that, as a part of the ordinance, the implementation <br /> plan recommends that Orange County acquire such a tub grinder. It is possible that an arrangement <br /> could be made with legitimate agricultural purposes to operate the grinder at some kind of reduced rate <br /> to assist the farmers. He is not sure if it would be legal to do this for farmers and not for developers. <br /> Ed Houser, owner of a general contracting business, asked that the County Commissioners <br /> consider how they can sort the waste out in a reasonable space so that people could get their work <br /> done. He said that there should be room to sort the waste. <br /> Sue Sweezy, from Recycling for Youth, talked about the illegal dumping that is done at the site <br /> they maintain for wooden skids. She said that her understanding is that there would be lower tipping <br /> fees for those who separate materials and there are also three new positions. She asked for the <br /> financial information on the tipping fees and also the new positions. <br /> Commissioner Brown asked staff for a list of ways of sorting construction debris onsite. <br /> The Board would like to see some creative ideas about allowing burning for agricultural uses. <br /> Commissioner Jacobs would also like staff to come back with ideas about establishing a threshold <br /> below which renovations would be exempt. <br /> Commissioner Brown would also like the staff to come back with some type of response to the <br /> storm damage issue. <br /> Commissioner Brown would also like the staff to come back with some of the economic issues of <br /> this ordinance. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.