Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
16 <br /> <br />a straightforward property rights issue, but the state legislature would not let the Board discuss 1 <br />it, and he said people have different opinions about property rights. 2 <br />Commissioner Jacobs said the Board is trying to make changes to regulate the effects 3 <br />on other people, and it is not an attack on the flag itself, but rather the size of the flag. 4 <br />Commissioner Jacobs said he would welcome further discussion regarding flags, and 5 <br />their uses in the 1860s versus the 1960s. 6 <br />Commissioner Price thanked the residents for coming out to speak, and said, in general, 7 <br />the people have expressed her sentiments. 8 <br />Commissioner Rich thanked all for coming out, and she said the number one job of the 9 <br />Board of County Commissioners is to keep residents safe. She said the Board owes the public 10 <br />a decision tonight, and this is a part of the UDO, which is living document. She said she is in 11 <br />favor of the amendment 4 and 7. She said if Chair Dorosin were present, he would say this is 12 <br />government in action. 13 <br />Commissioner McKee said he disagreed with making an immediate decision, and this 14 <br />Board is known for trying to gather all information, and allowing for exhaustive discussion 15 <br />before decisions are made 16 <br /> 17 <br />A motion was made by Commissioner McKee to defer the decision to June 19th to allow 18 <br />for additional comments from the public that might be generated by the public comments made 19 <br />this evening. 20 <br /> 21 <br />No Second. 22 <br />Motion fails. 23 <br /> 24 <br />Commissioner Jacobs said someone expressed concern about the height of the flagpole 25 <br />versus the setback, and whether the flagpole could be moved so close as to land on someone 26 <br />else’s property. He asked if staff discussed this, and if this is worth revisiting. 27 <br />Michael Harvey said staff did discuss this, and staff has been as equitable as possible. 28 <br />He reminded the BOCC that flagpoles erected on non-residential property would have to get 29 <br />appropriate building permits in order to guarantee wind load. He said flagpoles on residential 30 <br />property do not necessarily have to get a building permit. He said staff has come up with a 31 <br />reasonable standard, which was presented to the Planning Board. He said there was concern 32 <br />about smaller lots, and as such, the County Attorney has offered a modification to address 33 <br />smaller lots, as well as eliminate contradictory height limits for poles. He said ultimately the 34 <br />Board will provide direction to staff as to how this amendment package will go. 35 <br />Commissioner Marcoplos referred to attachment 4 including attachment 7, and asked if 36 <br />this has the one year amortization. 37 <br />John Roberts said both have a one-year amortization for flags. 38 <br />Commissioner Marcoplos asked if this exempts schools, fire departments, and County 39 <br />buildings. 40 <br />John Roberts said no. 41 <br />Michael Harvey said neither ordinance proposal would exempt any land use activity, and 42 <br />it is based on zoning. 43 <br />Commissioner Marcoplos said this could potentially cost schools and fire departments 44 <br />money in order to bring flags into compliance. 45 <br />Michael Harvey said at some at some point anyone with a non-compliant flag will have 46 <br />to bring it into compliance, regardless of who that person/business/school, etc. is. 47 <br />Commissioner Marcoplos asked if consistent height is part of this. 48 <br />John Roberts said yes, and this is recommended in attachment 7. 49