Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
jW-APr ; //--/O- 36I I."PLA-AlMtNG eobeb MI ktUr <br /> 084 <br /> and since the lots had to be split because <br /> the road eliminated the opportunity to <br /> create 10+ acre Lots she decided to split <br /> the lots even smaller in size. She felt <br /> the Lots were nicely shaped as proposed. <br /> VOTE: Unanimous. <br /> AGENDA ITEM: AMENDMENTS TO THE SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION <br /> CONTROL ORDINANCE} <br /> Presentation by FaircLoth. <br /> MOTION I moved approval of amendments to <br /> Sections 2 and G. <br /> VOTE: Unanimous (Kramer out of the room.) • <br /> MOTION: Shanklin moved approval of amendments to <br /> Sections 4-15 . Pearson seconded the <br /> motion . <br /> VOTE: Unanimous (Kramer out of the room.) <br /> MOTION: Shanklin moved approval of amendments to <br /> Sections - 17-22. Pearson seconded the <br /> motion . <br /> Margison inquired if the fine was $100 a <br /> day. Faircloth responded that each day <br /> constituted a separate violation and <br /> therefore each day could represent a fine <br /> of $100.00. <br /> Gordon inquired what was meant be civil <br /> penalties . Faircloth responded that in <br /> some cases, particularly in the state <br /> enforcement of state—wide ordinance, <br /> negotiations take place on settlements for <br /> violations . He noted that nothing <br /> comparable had ever occurred in Orange <br /> County during his tenure. He suggested <br /> that the intention here was to clarify how <br /> fines are imposed and on what basis. <br /> Pearson noted that the penalty could not <br /> exceed $100.00 a violation . He added that <br /> court action could be taken to obtain <br /> damages as well in addition to the fines . <br /> Faircloth noted that no fines had been <br /> imposed in Orange County in three years . <br /> Shanklin inquired about the Scott case. <br /> Faircloth noted that that situation was a <br /> 1 violation of a different pollution <br />