Minutes 05-15-2018 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

16 conversations like tonight are necessary. He said many intelligent comments were made this evening, and it would be beneficial to invite Mr. Carrington the next time a community conversation occurs, to provide information about flags and flag history. Commissioner Jacobs said the Board once dealt with the issue of preventing hunting deer with dogs, as people were allowing dogs to trespass on properties. He said it seemed like a straightforward property rights issue, but the state legislature would not let the Board discuss it, and he said people have different opinions about property rights. Commissioner Jacobs said the Board is trying to make changes to regulate the effects on other people, and it is not an attack on the flag itself, but rather the size of the flag. Commissioner Jacobs said he would welcome further discussion regarding flags, and their uses in the 1860s versus the 1960s. Commissioner Price thanked the residents for coming out to speak, and said, in general, the people have expressed her sentiments. Commissioner Rich thanked all for coming out, and she said the number one job of the Board of County Commissioners is to keep residents safe. She said the Board owes the public a decision tonight, and this is a part of the UDO, which is living document. She said she is in favor of the amendment 4 and 7. She said if Chair Dorosin were present, he would say this is government in action. Commissioner McKee said he disagreed with making an immediate decision, and this Board is known for trying to gather all information, and allowing for exhaustive discussion before decisions are made A motion was made by Commissioner McKee to defer the decision to June 19th to allow for additional comments from the public that might be generated by the public comments made this evening. No Second. Motion fails. Commissioner Jacobs said someone expressed concern about the height of the flagpole versus the setback, and whether the flagpole could be moved so close as to land on someone else’s property. He asked if staff discussed this, and if this is worth revisiting. Michael Harvey said staff did discuss this, and staff has been as equitable as possible. He reminded the BOCC that flagpoles erected on non-residential property would have to get appropriate building permits in order to guarantee wind load. He said flagpoles on residential property do not necessarily have to get a building permit. He said staff has come up with a reasonable standard, which was presented to the Planning Board. He said there was concern about smaller lots, and as such, the County Attorney has offered a modification to address smaller lots, as well as eliminate contradictory height limits for poles. He said ultimately the Board will provide direction to staff as to how this amendment package will go. Commissioner Marcoplos referred to attachment 4 including attachment 7, and asked if this has the one year amortization. John Roberts said both have a one-year amortization for flags. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if this exempts schools, fire departments, and County buildings. John Roberts said no. Michael Harvey said neither ordinance proposal would exempt any land use activity, and it is based on zoning. Commissioner Marcoplos said this could potentially cost schools and fire departments money in order to bring flags into compliance.