Agenda - 12-03-2012 - 5a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2 1 that funds will not be used for operating expenses. She said that naming rights should also be 2 addressed. 3 Commissioner Gordon said that she was sold until she started reading about legal 4 control. She read: "distinct from the accounting rules above, a nonprofit transfer of assets to 5 an Agency Fund at TCF also transfers legal ownership and fiduciary responsibility of the assets. 6 As a result, all distributions from Agency Funds are subject to approval by TCF's Board of 7 Directors. Approval is routinely granted from non-endowed funds and from the accrued 8 Spendable of endowed funds." She said that she needs to know more about this because she 9 does not see how county funds can be subjected to control by anyone else. She asked if it was 10 done by not having endowed funds and Colleen Bridger said that this is how it is done. 11 Commissioner Gordon asked how the County could get out of the contract if needed. 12 Frank Clifton said that it could be written into the contract. 13 Commissioner Yuhasz asked how this would impact the volunteer activities. He does 14 not want to have this seen as the only way to contribute to Orange County. 15 Frank Clifton said that this would mainly be for assets, cash, etc. 16 Commissioner Gordon clarified that there will be a contract that excludes endowed 17 agency funds, there will be a way to get out of the contract, and that it is Orange County funds 18 managed by TCF. 19 The Board agreed. 20 21 2. Review of Kennel Requlations 22 The Board reviewed existing permitting and land use development regulations governing 23 the development of Kennels, Class I and Class II within Orange County. 24 Michael Harvey said that the purpose of this meeting is to discuss the regulations on 25 development of Class I and Class II kennels. In January of this year, the Board reapproved an 26 ordinance amendment splitting out riding stables and kennels. There were also modified 27 definitions to be consistent and to avoid confusion. The issue that arose in this process was 28 with the Class B special use permit. He made reference to page 2 of the packet and the 29 permitting processes for various kennels. Several questions have been posed to staff and 30 pages three and four have responses to these questions. There have been concerns about 31 whether this use should be allowed in the rural buffer zoning district and whether or not it 32 should be allowed through the Class B Special Use Permit process. The staff believes it is 33 acceptable to allow this use in the rural buffer as long as it goes through the SUP process. He 34 said that Class A and B processes are virtually identical. Staff believes that the processes are 35 adequate and appropriate. There were some questions about whether there needs to be 36 specific development standards for Class I kennels and staff agrees with this. With a Class II 37 kennel, there are 150-foot setbacks. Class I could have additional setbacks. 38 There were some Planning Board members that mentioned that they were concerned 39 that there were no development standards governing the actual physical development of the 40 building itself. He said that zoning looks at land use issues and there is a partnership with 41 Animal Services to make sure that land use issues are addressed. There are conditions in 42 place that the use will not have an adverse affect on the surrounding area. 43 Frank Clifton said that one of the concerns is the possibility of rescue operations. Class 44 I and Class II does not allow someone to sell dogs. He asked where the line gets drawn if a 45 dog has a litter of puppies. He said that this creates an issue that will be difficult to enforce and 46 he offered a word of caution regarding this. 47 Commissioner Yuhasz said that it seems that the Planning staff does not see a need to 48 make changes. 49 Michael Harvey said that the Planning staff focused on process issues. He thinks that 50 there is an opportunity to develop standards for the Class I kennel and development of