Minutes 10-09-2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

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